LCR19811

The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. As a consequence of the abolition of the allowances, twenty four years of working unsocial hours will be ignored as far as his pension is concerned even though pension contributions were paid on the allowance.

2. The Worker did not vote in favour of "mark time" as he was aware of the negative impact it would have on his pension. Therefore the Collective Agreement should not be binding on him.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The reorganisation was implemented in accordance with a collective agreement between all of the Trade Unions and the Company.

2. The Agreement allowed for the payment of compensation for the loss of allowances which had been paid, that compensation is known as "mark time".

3. If the Worker had opted for the voluntary leaving package instead at the time he would have received a severance package which would have taken into account the unsocial hours and consequent allowances.

RECOMMENDATION:

The claim before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on behalf of a Worker concerns the loss of pensionable allowances which arose as a result of a Transformation Agreement in the Company in March 1999. The Claimant sought an increase in his basic rate of pay to reflect the allowances and sought that they be retrospectively increased in line with all pay increases since 1999. The Claimant had been in receipt of the allowances when he worked as a Senior Night Telephonist in the Waterford Telephone Exchange.

He submitted that the allowances were in the nature of pay and had been paid for a period of 24 years prior to the 1999 Transformation Agreement. He held that while others had benefited from the 1999 Agreement that there were a small minority who had lost out and that due to his own personal circumstances his position was unique.

The Company submitted that the allowances were paid for working unsocial hours and due to the closure of the Waterford Telephone Exchange in 1999 these allowances ceased and Employees were compensated in accordance with a reorganisation collective agreement negotiated between the Company and the CWU. (The Claimant was a member of the CWU and Chairman of the local branch).

Following the reorganisation and his redeployment in April 1999 the Claimant was promoted to a Telecom Officer clerical grade TEOI and he no longer worked the unsocial hours. He was compensated for the loss of the allowances by an agreement known as the “Mark Time Agreement”.

The Court was presented with very detailed submissions from both sides and having considered the oral and written submissions the Court is satisfied that a collective agreement was freely negotiated between the Company and his representative Union in 1999 which has been implemented in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court does not find merit in conceding his claim.

Therefore, the Court rejects the Claimant’s claim.

The Court so recommends.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.