FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for Euro changeover.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Unions is on behalf of all staff who were directly or indirectly affected by the Euro changeover in January, 2002. The Unions supplied a list of the extra work involved. The TSSA represents clerical and executive members and is seeking a lump sum payment of €152.37 per worker. SIPTU and the NBRU represent approximately 500 workers and they are seeking a payment of €2,539.48 per worker. The Company has rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of August, 2002.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The C.I.E. companies have conducted business separately since 1987. However, relativities still remain between certain groups of workers, including clerical and executive. Both Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann have paid a lump sum of €150.37 to staff who handled dual currencies in the changeover period, and Iarnrod Eireann should do the same in this case.
2. Workers experienced great difficulties at the commencement of the Euro changeover, e.g. in booking offices and on board trains. In some cases, this additional work continued on after the 9th of February, 2002, when the dual currency mandate ceased nationwide.
3. A large number of other companies such as Banks, Securicor/Brinks Allied Limited, Credit Unions and the Civil Service paid lump sums to staff involved in the changeover.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Euro changeover was not a Company initiative and was of no benefit to the Company. No payment is justified. Previous Labour Court recommendations have rejected similar claims.
2. Staff received extensive training and were provided with information on an ongoing basis. Virtually all training was on site and within the normal rostered hours.
3. Major pay increases were made to all staff associated with the claim in late 2001. Clerical pay rates were increased by 15% in a deal which included a commitment to change and co-operation
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the position of each of the Unions' claims for compensation for the Euro changeover. The Court is of the view that handling the Euro for those workers involved in these claims can reasonably be considered as ongoing change and therefore, concession of the claim is not recommended.
The Court has considered the issue of relativity with other CIE companies and the claim for similar payments to be made to clerical and executive staff who were either directly or indirectly involved in, or affected by, the introduction of the Euro. The Court is satisfied that the circumstances which applied in the other CIE companies were not the same as those which applied in Iarnrod Eireann. In the sister companies, a Euro familiarisation allowance was paid to "qualified employees" on completion of a training/competency programme. This programme had to be attended outside working hours.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th September, 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.