FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN (LONGFORD) - AND - FOUR WORKERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Filling of vacancies in Longford Depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four workers who are employed by the Company as locomotive drivers and are currently based in Athlone and Longford.The issue arises as a result of the re-opening of the Longford Depot as a locomotive depot where drivers are based. This necessitated the transfer of a number of drivers from other depots to Longford in order to fill the six ultimate vacancies that were created. It is the manner in which those transfers were allocated that is disputed by the claimants. They maintain that the manner in which Iarnrod Eireann have filled vacancies in Longford Depot on 28th April, 2003 is inconsistent with the company's long standing promotion and transfer agreements and custom and practice and denies drivers in the Western /Galway promotional area their entitlement under these arrangements and custom and practice to first call on such vacancies and consequent seniority in Longford Depot. Management rejected the claim. On the 30th May, 2003 the claimants referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Athlone on the 21st October, 2003.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to offer the vacancies at Longford to drivers in the Connolly/ Northern promotional area/district was contrary to the long standing agreement in place since 1964. The decision intruded in the entitlements of drivers in the Galway/Western promotional area to the vacancies that are properly theirs. The Company decision has meant that only two of the eventual six vacancies went to Athlone drivers. The two Athlone drivers who transferred have not been allocated the most senior positions in Longford in accordance with agreements and custom and practice. The other two Athlone drivers have not been accommodated in their applications and continue to work in Athlone.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposal to create the Longford Depot was discussed and agreed with the relevant unions. The Longford Depot is under the control of the District Manager Northern, based at Connolly Depot. The driving work load being allocated from Connolly to Longford was previously performed by Connolly based staff. It was appropriate that Connolly drivers would have an option to transfer to Longford.
2. The Company has the right to negotiate an agreement with its recognised trade unions to meet particular circumstances. A very practical agreement was reached with the unions in order to staff the new depot. It took into account the involvement of existing drivers in Connolly and the aspirations of drivers in the Athlone Depot. These were aspirant transferees to Longford, largely because of personal circumstances.
3. The total of nine applications were dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner under an agreement between the Company and the relevant unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the Company acted in accordance with good industrial relations practice in consulting with the unions and in proceeding in an agreed manner in filling the vacancies at issue. Whilst the Court does accept that Mr Ward had an expectation of placement in one of the vacancies, it notes that by agreement with his union he has now been appointed to the relief position and is next in line for future vacancies.
As the vacancies were filled in a manner agreed between the company and the unions, who are the parties to and custodians of all relevant collective agreements, the Court cannot find fault with the process.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th November, 2003______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.