FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION N.B.R.U. DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Voluntary Severance terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court today concerns the interpretation of an agreement reached between both Trade Unions, representing Train Guards, and Management in 2006 in respect of the roll-out of One Person Operation (OPO) on mainline services within Iarnrod Eireann. In particular it refers to point 6 of the Agreement which states " The current voluntary severance terms will apply."
The claim concerns two Workers one of whom was redeployed and subsequently agreed to avail of the Voluntary Severance Package on offer. The Worker received assurances that any monies due as a result of the claim before the Court today would be honoured and paid. The second Worker is still with the Company and has been offered Voluntary Severance which does not include the Termination Bonus and which is capped at €120,000. The Unions are of the view that in this case the Termination Bonus should apply in addition to capping of €150,000.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th January 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th May 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' contention is that Point 6 of the Agreement refers to the current Voluntary Severance Terms which applied i.e. those who applied for the Voluntary Severance Package at that particular juncture did include the Termination Bonus. It also applied to those Train Guards who took up a redeployment opportunity with an opportunity to avail of the Severance Package within one year of redeployment.
2. The Unions maintained that it was not possible for Train Guards in Cork and Galway to exit on Voluntary Severance or take up redeployment in 2006 as OPO was not introduced there until late 2008/2009
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that a reasonable and correct interpretation of Point 6 of the 2006 Agreement would be that the terms current at the date of exit should be the ones applicable.
2. The Company contends that the Termination Bonus as stated was never, nor was it intended to be an integral part of the voluntary severance package, but merely and incentive to exit quickly.
3. The Workers concerned have signed and accepted their severance as being in full and final settlement of any claims against Iarnrod Eireann.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties to this dispute are relying on the terms of an agreement dated 24th July 2006. In relevant part this agreement provides in relation to those opting for voluntary severance in the future that“the current voluntary severance terms will apply”. The Unions contend that this means that the terms current at the date of the agreement (July 2006) should be applied to all future voluntary severance arrangements involving grades covered by the agreement. The Company contend that the agreement means that those exiting on a voluntary basis will receive the terms current at the time of exit.
Having considered the terms of the agreement it is clear that both interpretations of the language used are equally cogent and there is nothing in the circumstances surrounding its conclusion to indicate which interpretation was intended. Against that background the Court can obtain no useful guidance from the agreement on how the present dispute should be resolved. Consequently, it should approach the issues in contention on the basis of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
On that approach the Court notes that at the time Mr Murphy agreed to redeploy the termination bonus was still applicable. On that basis the Court recommends that he be paid the bonus. In that regard the Court notes that Mr Murphy qualified his acceptance of the severance terms which he received and this qualification was accepted by the Company without demur.
In the case of Mr Hewitt, the Court recommends that the parties reengage, over a period not exceeding three months, with a view to identifying a suitable post, commensurate with his former role, into which Mr Hewitt can be redeployed. Should this claimant decline to accept redeployment to such a post he should be offered the now current voluntary severance terms.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th May 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.