FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Restoration of basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a Resident Crossing Keeper at Kyle Level Crossing on the Dublin to Cork railway line. She provided 24 hour cover at the crossing with no relief. In April, 1999 after negotiations the Company agreed to place a second person at the crossing to provide 8 hours cover leaving 16 hours for the worker concerned. As a result of this change the Company reduced the marking system by five marks thus reducing her rate of pay by £12.23 per week.
The Union states that this worker was treated unfairly and the reduction in her pay is unacceptable. The Company states that when relief was provided a reassessment of the marking system had to take place. The Company/Union agreement for gatekeepers was followed.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 19th of January, 2000. As agreement was not reached , the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of April, 2000, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of June, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Similar assistance was provided at a number of crossings in the Waterford area over the years and there was no reduction in wages.
2. The worker concerned was treated unfairly. She should receive arrears of pay from April, 1999 until April, 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no comparable case in the Waterford area.
2. The Union was advised verbally and in writing regarding the provision of relief for the worker concerned and its implications on her rate of pay.
3. The Company acted in accordance with the Company/Union agreement for gatekeepers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and subsequent correspondence.
The Court is not satisfied that evidence has been produced to prove that there is a precedent for employees retaining their level of pay when their responsibilities have been changed.
However, in relation to the argument made by the claimant that she had been given to understand that "something would be done" for her, the Court is not satisfied that this has been refuted by the Company.
The Court having considered all the aspects of this case recommends that the Company pays the claimant a £250 lump sum in full settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th August, 2000______________________
G.B./S.H.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.