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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for lump sum compensation for Signalpersons who were redeployed following introduction of Mini-CTC on Rosslare line.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mini-Central Traffic Control (CTC) is a computerised signalling system and in the case of the Dublin to Rosslare railway line is controlled from the Greystones cabin. This has resulted in the closure of the cabins at Wicklow, Rathdrum, Arklow, Gorey and Enniscorthy and the affected Signalpersons could either accept a voluntary severance package or be re-deployed to the post of Station Operative Grade 2. A package was agreed but one outstanding issue regarding a claim for €1,500 in compensation for the re-deployment still remains outstanding.
The 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 26th September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the time of the re-deployment of the Train Guards, which was precipitated by the introduction of the one-person-operated MarkIV trains on the Cork to Dublin Line, a lump sum in compensation was paid to them, there is no reason why the Signalpersons should be treated any less favourably.
2. The Signalpersons' Agreement 2000 did not include or mention the Rosslare railway line and therefore was outside of the Agreement. The resulting new work practices are not conducive to the Agreement and compensation is warranted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Mini-CTC has been introduced on other lines that were not mentioned in the Signalpersons' Agreement of 2000 in respect of which compensation was neither claimed nor paid.
2. Concession of this claim will undoubtedly lead to similar claims from all former Signalpersons on any of the train lines that have converted over to
Mini-CTC to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for a compensation payment for Signalpersons redeployed to station duties following the introduction of Mini-CTC on the Rosslare Line and the closure of most of the signal cabins between Wicklow and Rosslare Harbour. The Company disputed the claim and stated that the redeployment was consistent with the “New Framework For Staff Development and Work Arrangements – Signalpersons” (Signalpersons' Agreement) reached in 2000.
The Union held that as the Rosslare Line was not mentioned in the Signalpersons' Agreement and as a compensatory payment was paid to Train Guards redeployed in 2006 as a result of the introduction of one person Mark IV trains, then the Claimants should also receive such a payment.
Having examined the submissions presented, the Court notes that Labour Court Recommendation No 16685 and the Signalpersons' Agreement 2000 dealt with pay, conditions of employment and work practices and fully encompassed the situation which arises on the closure of the cabins and redeployment of staff to station duties following the introduction of Mini-CTC. The Court notes that the parties accepted both the Recommendation and the Agreement.
Furthermore, the Court does not accept that the 2006 Agreement applicable to Train Guards has any application outside of the Guards and is satisfied that it has no relevance in this case.
Consequently, the Court rejects the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th November, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.