FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 352/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the transfer of the worker, a locomotive driver, from Connolly station to the DART depot at Fairview.
On the 22nd of October, 1997, a vacancy occurred at the Fairview depot. The worker was next in line for promotion to the vacancy. The Company did indicate at the time that there could be some delay before the move was finalised. A number of difficulties, including the driver who was due to move to Connolly becoming ill, meant that the worker concerned did not move to Fairview until the 9th of March, 1998.
The Union believes that the worker had lost out financially because of the delay in the transfer, and referred the case to a Rights Commissioner. His recommendation is as follows:-
"I, therefore, recommend that Iarnrod Eireann should offer,
and that the worker and the NBRU should accept, a once-off
lump sum of £250 in full and final resolution of this dispute,
this settlement to be without precedent and to be accepted as
relating to the particular circumstances of this case only."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd of September, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was next in line for the promotion to Fairview, and was entitled to move into the vacancy.
2. The problems that the Company refers to (details supplied to the Court) are the normal problems that every depot has. They are no excuse for the long delay in transferring the worker.
3. The worker lost considerable earnings (approximately £2,800) as a result of not being transferred until March, 1998.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were a number of reasons outside the Company's control which caused the delay of the transfer. The Company had indicated in a letter to all concerned that there would be difficulties.
2. If the Company were to concede the claim, it would mean that the manager of a depot could be limited in his response to ever-changing pressures. Managers must be able to decide how best to deploy available workers.
DECISION:
The Court considers that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be implemented.
The appeal is disallowed, and the Rights Commissioner's recommendation affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th December, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.