FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD �IREANN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged withholding of final part of loss of earnings compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June 2000 in accordance with the agreed implementation arrangements for "A New Deal for Locomotive Drivers" 147 drivers received loss of earnings compensation. The worker received a sum of £1,068.91p as 50% of the compensation due - payable in April and December 2000. The core element of the agreement for early implementation was an agreement whereby drivers would cover rest days until the full complement of locomotive drivers was trained in September 2001. When the second stage loss of earnings payment fell due in December 2000 the Company took the decision to withhold payment to drivers who were refusing to work rest days as outlined under the agreement on rest day working. The worker referred the case to the Labour Court for consideration under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Court heard the case on the 30th January 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker contends that he did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of changes in his terms and conditions of employment as provided for in LRC 16347 and is, therefore, entitled to the loss of earnings compensation.
2. There has been no occasion on which the worker has failed to report for duty and he did work two rest days when he was asked to.
3. Management acted arbitrarily and outside all procedure in denying the worker the loss of earnings payment on spurious grounds and without prior notice or recourse to procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not co-operate with agreements formally entered into and, therefore, did qualify for the second payment. The agreement on early payment of loss of earnings compensation was an integral part of the agreement "A New Deal for Locomotive Drivers" as is the interim agreement on rest day working.
2. The failure of the worker to co-operate with the agreement entered into has impacted on both passenger and freight services and has resulted in significant lost revenues to the Company.
3. The action entered into by the worker is a clear breach of the terms under which he returned to work on the 28th August 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The New Deal for train drivers, as originally concluded between the Company and its negotiating Unions, was advanced at the desire of the Unions from September 2001 to June 2000 on the basis of acceptance of an added Interim Agreement. This required drivers to work their rest days if necessary in the interim period up to September 2001, when newly trained drivers would be available. This was essential to make up for the known loss in driving hours under the new rosters, as against the hours worked previously on overtime. Under the Interim Agreement the drivers received the new annual pay rates and conditions from June 2000, with the requirement to work rest days when reasonably available to do so (with further payment for any rest day work). The compensation amounts negotiated in the original agreement would not be affected by such additional work.
The Company claims that a small number of drivers have not made themselves available for rest day working, as specified in the Interim Agreement. As a result the Company decided to withhold from these drivers the second half of the compensatory payments, due at the end of 2000, on the basis that these drivers were not adhering to the terms of the total new agreement.
It was argued in this case the compensation was part of the original deal, and as such should be paid independently of any Interim Agreement.
The Union argued separately that the individual involved in this case had worked on rest days on two occasions when the Company so sought, but stated that they did not want the case to be decided on this latter point. The Company did not accept that this driver was willing to work on rest days
The Court is satisfied that the new deal for locomotive drivers and the subsequent agreement for implementation of the deal are now the basis of the contract of employment for locomotive drivers.
In a situation where an individual has indicated that he is unwilling or refuses to operate the total agreement, as we believe to be the situation in this case, the Court finds it not unreasonable for the Company to withhold pay elements of the agreement, in this instance the second phase of the compensation moiety.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd February, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.