FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation for operating the Cork-Midleton Line.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Company's plan to open the railway line from Glounthaune to Midleton for passenger traffic. The Unions are seeking compensation for working this service but the Company rejects this. 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 25th May, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th July, 2009, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This is an extension to the existing service.
2. The operation of this service will require additional duties and productivity.
3.There are precedents in relation to compensation for extensions to the service and for additional duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operation of this service will not require any additional competencies, duties or productivity.
2. Additional drivers have been recruited to assist in operating this service.
3.Concession of this claim will result in retrospective claims and also has the potential to jeopardise future improvements to the service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions’ claim is based on three grounds, namely: -
•The payment of a lump sum of £8,000 to DART Drivers in 1999 on foot of Labour Court Recommendation 16218,
•The payment of lump sums to CTC signalpersons; and
•The Unions’ contention that the new service in issue constitutes a new line to the current rail network.
Having fully considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that none of the grounds advanced provide a basis upon which the Court could recommend concession of the claim.
With regard to LCR 16218, this Recommendation was made by the Court on the clear and express understanding that it could have no precedent value. Accordingly, it cannot be cited or relied upon by the Unions in support of the present claim. In any event, the Court is fully satisfied that the circumstances giving rise to that Recommendation are totally different to those surrounding this claim. The Court is also satisfied that the circumstances in which negotiations in respect of CTC Signalpersons are being conducted are unique to that grade and cannot avail the Claimants in this claim. Finally, it is of no significance whether the service in issue is to be regarded as a new line or the extension of an existing line. In either case there is no agreement nor custom and practice within the Company whereby an entitlement to monetary compensation is created.
What is at issue in this case is an extension of the existing service provided by the Company in the Cork area. It does not involve any additional productivity and this is acknowledged by the Unions. Nor does it involve those associated with the claim undertaking ongoing additional duties of substance outside the normal scope of their employment. In the Court’s view the extension giving rise to the dispute is part of the continuing development of the rail network. It is, therefore, normal ongoing change as that term is normally understood. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that the “New Deal” Agreement comprehends such extensions of services and requires drivers to cooperate with such initiatives.
Having regard to these considerations the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions’ claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th July, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.