FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR2522/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a Resident Level Crossing Keeper. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of the worker for retrospective pay for her duties over the past twenty years. The Union argues that prior to a recent review the differential which the worker should have had amounted to £28 (35.55 Euro) per week. The Company rejected the claim. The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioners recommendation is a follows:-
"I recommend that (the worker) accepts that her rate of pay was correct and that no compensation is due to her."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 8th of February, 2001, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint in Athlone on the 11th of September, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has a long and proud tradition of operating the Crossing, she has been employed by the Company since 1960.
2. Crossing Keepers have a very difficult job and she used to operate the crossing on a 24 hour basis until recent years when relief was provided and she now operates the crossing from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
3. When the marking system was introduced, the crossing which the worker operates was allocated 10 marks whereas the operatives on either side were awarded 40 each. Level Crossing Keepers were paid on the basis of the marks awarded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was paid a higher rate of pay for operating the gates, over that determined by the Agreed Marking System for Level Crossings.
2. The level of marks for the Crossing would not have altered the payment for operating the crossing, if the crossing was re-designated as a CX Crossing.
3. All Crossing Keepers are now paid on an equal footing since the introduction of the minimum hourly rate of pay in 2000.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the position of both sides and is of the view that the claimant was properly graded as a CD level crossing keeper.
The Court is satisfied that the appellant was on a personal rate of pay in excess of those colleagues who were on similar grading. This arose in 1980 when the marking system was introduced as she was already on a higher rate.
In 1995, there was an agreement with the Union that due to her personal rate, the claimant's pay would increase by a proportion of the PESP and PCW increases only. The information on her rate of pay (for the period between 1986 to date) compared with the pay of those on similar markings suggest that the Company were not attempting to claw back the personal rate as she remained on higher rate of pay than her colleagues.
It was in 1999 that her rate was brought into line with those on similar markings. Since the national minimum wage legislation became effective in 2000, all level crossing keepers are now on an equal basis, regardless of the marking system.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th November, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.