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. 1. Interpretation of Agreement and 2. Travelling Time
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court concern the staff at Thurles Station. The first issue concerns the different interpretations of an Agreement reached in November 2006 and outlined in a letter of January 2007. The Union contends that the Agreement should be interpreted that the Station Operative 2 Grade should apply to all staff presently employed in Thurles station and to future staff employed there. The Company rejects this claim on the basis that the agreement reached was red-circled to the staff in Thurles at the time of the Agreement.
The second issue concerns travel time. The staff from Thurles Station supply relief to staff at other locations when required. Travel-time was paid for numerous years to Thurles station staff at a rate of two hours' for travelling out to the location, two hours' for travelling back from the location per duty at such location and a subsistence allowance of €20.15 per day. The staff concerned used their own transport.
Some years ago these arrangements under this local agreement were increased to two hours for travelling out to the location and two hours travelling back from the location each day together with the subsistence payment. Following negotiations a number of years ago between the Trade unions and the Company, zoning arrangements were introduced for all staff in the Company travelling out to relief work. The Union is seeking to maintain their current local arrangement as staff would be at a loss of earnings under the zoning arrangements.
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 5th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Agreement concedes the grade of Station Operative 2 to staff in Thurles on the basis of the completion of competencies. The staff concerned are relieving in positions of a higher grade on a continuous basis.
2 At no stage in the negotiating of this Agreement was it indicated that individuals were red-circled on this basis nor does it show this in the Agreement.
3 Any change in the travel time payments in respect of the situation in Thurles with the application of zoning would result in significant loss of earnings for staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Agreement reached in November 2006 was red circled to the individuals in staff in Thurles at that time. Extending the situation to an individual at this time would result in all future entrants into Thurles staff being graded at the Station Operative 2 level. This situation could not be justified.
2 A number of the duties associated with the Agreement at that time have since disappeared again reducing the requirement for enhanced grading.
3 The zoning arrangements for travel time were agreed with the trade unions. All other locations have since adopted the zoning arrangements so any deviation from the proposed arrangements will have countrywide implications.
RECOMMENDATION:
In relation to the issues before it the Court recommends as follows:-
Grading at Thurles Station
The letter of offer issued by the Company dated 4th January 2007 is somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted in the way advocated by the Union. However that would lead to an unreasonable result in the long term which, the Court accepts, could not have been intended.
The Court recommends that the Company's interpretation of the Agreement be accepted. However, having regard to the ambiguity in the letter, the Company should agree to appoint the two individuals associated with this claim at grade 2. This should be a once-off arrangement and henceforth all current staff covered by the 2007 Agreement and those two individuals covered by this claim should be regarded as red-circled.
Travelling Time
The Court is satisfied that the offer made by the Company in its letter dated 10th January 2008 is perfectly clear and allows for only one interpretation. The offer was made on the basis that it would supersede all local arrangements. The arrangement in Thurles was a local agreement and it was superseded by the new agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th February, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.