FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DANIEL SPRING & CO (SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Wages ,Grievance, Disciplinary Policies and Procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who has been employed as a locomotive driver for the past 26 years. On the 25th of November, 1999, the worker applied for one day's paid annual leave on his time-sheet in the normal manner. On receiving his wages subsequently he noticed that a deduction was made for the day. He queried this and was informed that the annual leave (paid) had been replaced on the time-sheet by "special leave" unpaid. The worker complained to management and requested a meeting under the grievance and disciplinary procedures to discuss the issue. The Company subsequently wrote to the worker, rectified the error and paid the worker for the day and expressed regret for the inconvenience caused. It stated that the worker now had no grievance. The worker was unhappy with his treatment and on a number of occasions sought a meeting with the Company to discuss the issue. Management refused this request. The worker sought to refer the issue to a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The Company declined to attend a conciliation conference. On the 18th of February, 2000, the worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.By letter dated 1st April, 2000 the Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing . It stated that the wage issue was dealt with, and that no condition or contract of employment was at issue. A Court hearing was held on the 4th of April,2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has been reimbursed the sum which was wrongfully deducted from his wages by Irish Rail. The financial aspect of his complaint has therefore been resolved.
2. The substance of his grievance, however, still stands. He is seeking the following:
(i) A full explanation as to how the wages came to be deducted.
(ii) The name of the person who instructed the Wages Clerk in Dublin to deduct his wages.
(iii) An apology from the Company for deducting the wages and for refusing to attend the grievance meeting as arranged.
(iv) Confirmation that the Company will not unilaterally alter his time-sheets again.
3. In relation to the way in which the deduction was made, the Company's letter of the 8th of December, 1999 stated that the alteration to the worker's time-sheet was made in a district office by a clerical officer. The worker has been given to understand that the matter goes deeper than that. He contends that the clerical officer in Dublin had been instructed to alter the time-sheet by management in Irish Rail. If this is correct the explanation provided by the Company in the letter dated the 8th of December, 1999 is misleading and incomplete.
4. The worker is invoking the Company's Grievance, Disciplinary Policies and Procedures and in particular Sections 1 and 2 thereof.
5. It is agreed custom and practice for a driver to be informed if his time-sheet needs to be altered in any way. This was clearly not done in this case. Had this been complied with the problem would have been rectified before the worker had received his wages. The worker is seeking confirmation from the Company that it will in future comply with its obligations to consult a driver if there is a query in relation to a time-sheet.
6. The claimant contends that the Company acted in breach of the agreed procedures and was very arrogant in refusing to attend an arranged grievance meeting and in unilaterally declaring the grievance to be resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company did not attend the Court hearing.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the claimant is satisfied that the dispute in relation to his wage being altered was addressed by the Company. The Court therefore finds no reason for a grievance meeting to be held by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th April, 2000______________________
TOD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.