FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Disturbance payment due to bridge closure.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the overall investment in the rail network the East Wall Bridge was closed down for a number of months at weekends, to allow work on a replacement bridge to be carried out. As a consequence there were changed weekend working arrangements in respect of DART drivers based in Fairview and Bray depots. During the disruption, trains were located outside of Fairview; in Connolly and Pearse stations, and transport was provided to bring the drivers to and from their depots in Fairview and Bray. The Unions submitted a claim on behalf of 77 DART drivers for €650 per driver for the inconvenience and disturbance experienced by them during the period the bridge was closed. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in July, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 21st November, 2003.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants experienced significant disruption during the period when the bridge was closed. Drivers were left waiting for long periods of time for transport back to their depots, resulting in late finishing times. Meal breaks were also affected. During this time the claimants gave full flexibility and cooperation to the Company.
2. The Unions' claim is reasonable. During the course of the disruption at Heuston Station disturbance payments were made by the Company to other groups of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There was a limited change of working arrangements at weekends only. Minimal changes were made to operations arising from the construction project.The re-construction was part of the normal bridge renewal programme in the Company.
2. The 'New Deal' agreement provided that staff would cooperate with all necessary working arrangements.
3. The payment of compensation would invariably lead to knock on claims from other staff. Similar major rebuilding projects have taken place over recent years without the payment of compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim is on behalf of DART drivers who seek compensation for the disruption caused arising from the construction of a new railway bridge at East Wall. The Court notes that this work was necessary to bring about much needed improvements to the service provided for customers and to improve the working environment for employees. The Court also notes that the Company made every effort to put in place arrangements to facilitate staff and to minimise the amount of disruption caused.
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and is of the view that compensation for the level of inconvenience is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th November, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.