FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC423/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the introduction of a national productivity agreement in June, 1994 changes in working hours were implemented which resulted in a loss of shift work for a number of workers. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation for a loss of shift premium, amounting to £32 per week, by an employee at Portlaoise station. The Company claims that the worker's average gross earnings per week have increased, partly due to increased overtime payments, and that, therefore, compensation for loss of earnings is not due.
The Union referred a claim for compensation of three times the annual loss of shift premium to a Rights Commissioner. An investigation was held on 28th March, 1996. The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above, my recommendation is that as a once off
settlement, and on the strict understanding that no issue of precedent
will be raised by the Trade Union on behalf of any of its members, Iarnrod
Eireann should concede to (the worker) a lump sum payment equivalent to
one year's loss of shift."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 27th May, 1996. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has lost his right to shift premium which previously formed part of his weekly wage. He must now work overtime to maintain his previous level of earnings.
2. The worker's case was not referred to the committee which was monitoring the productivity agreement in 1994, as a verbal commitment to pay compensation was made to him. The Chairman of the committee awarded compensation to five workers in a similar position to that of the worker concerned.
3. The Union has given a clear undertaking to the Rights Commissioner that this claim is a solitary one and that his recommendation for payment of one year's compensation will not be used as a precedent for any future claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The productivity agreement provides for compensation for "actual" loss of earnings. The worker's average weekly earnings have increased (details supplied) since 1994 and, therefore, compensation to mitigate a loss of earnings does not apply.
2. On investigation of five other claims for compensation, the Chairman of the monitoring committee stated that the compensation formula would only apply where there was a definite loss of income. With regard to future cases he stated:-
"It should be clear that, for future cases, where a staff member comes off shift, but takes up rosters which include increased overtime hours, any compensation package will only take account of nett loss."
3. Although the Rights Commissioner stated that his recommendation should not be used as a precedent, a similar claim has since been received from another member of the Portlaoise staff.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court has concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th July, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.