FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim For 48-Hour Contract.
BACKGROUND:
2. A serious workplace accident in March 1997 resulted in the Worker being unable to return to work until May 2004, when a suitable position was found for him. Prior to this Worker's return to work, his grade's working week was changed from a 42- to a 48-hours contract. This dispute arose from the Worker's claim that he too should be on a 48 hours per week contract, instead of his current 45 hours per week contract.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th September 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th November 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Had the Worker not been injured in a serious workplace accident he would have moved to a 48-hours contract.
2. The Worker is being discriminated against on grounds of his disability which was caused by thisserious workplace accident.
.
3.The Company has not acted in accordance with local agreements and custom and practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A serious worklplace accident resulted in the Worker being unable to fulfill the duties of his previous position.
2. The Company managed to find the Worker another more suitable position so that he would not have to be retired on medical grounds.
3.There is no merit to this claim because the Union was involved in every stage of this process and agreed to the Company's proposals concerning this Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the Claimant in this case was transferred to Nenagh Station in accordance with an agreement arrived at with his Trade Union, the details of which are set out in the Company’s letter to the Union dated 12th May 2004. Those terms were subsequently amended by agreement so as to provide the Claimant with a 45-hour contract.
In these circumstances the Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it could recommend that the terms of the agreement be further enhanced. For that reason the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st December, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.