FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - NBRU & SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Seniority - Drivers
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the seniority of locomotive drivers who transferred to DART driving duties. 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 27th February, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th June, 2013.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 From the introduction of the DART in 1984, transferring locomotive drivers retained their seniority.
2 This seniority has never been ceded by the drivers concerned.
3 The drivers have, accordingly, the right to the voluntary severance on offer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 When the DART was introduced in 1984 locomotive drivers in the Dublin area could transfer to the DART on the basis of seniority.
2 When direct recruitment to the DART was introduced later, each DART was compensated for conceding any previous linkage.
3. Staff in other depots do not cite seniority to impede anybody taking voluntary severance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim regarding seniority of service for those drivers who transferred from Connolly 1 & 2 depots to DART driving duties post 1994. The Unions contend that such drivers maintained their seniority and accordingly have the right to avail of voluntary severance opportunities amongst locomotive drivers in Connolly Station on the basis of that seniority.
The Company rejects the claim, stating that such rights to seniority were relinquished by virtue of Labour Court Recommendation No 16218 in 1999 which awarded the claimant drivers £8000 in compensation at that time.
The Unions disputed the Company’s interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No 16218, and held that the payment was made in compensation for the Company’s right to recruit DART drivers directly rather than from the existing locomotive drivers and secondly for the extension of services to Greystones and Malahide.
Having carefully considered the position of both sides the Court interprets the position as follows:-
Historically, pre 1994 locomotive drivers based at Connolly 1 & 2 depots retained a right based on seniority to transfer to DART driving duties, this changed in 1998 when in return for relinquishing their seniority they received £11,000 compensation for giving up that right and consenting to the Company recruiting directly for DART from then on. DART drivers who had transferred from Connolly 1 & 2 depots, and confined to DART links (rosters) at Fairview and Bray, sought similar payments in 1999 in the context of the Company seeking direct recruitment to DART and the extension of DART services. They were awarded £8,000 under Labour Court Recommendation No 16218 and consequently relinquished their seniority.
A further acknowledgement of DART drivers relinquishing their seniority rights is contained in a letter from the Manager, Human Resources on 23rdSeptember 1999 to SIPTU subsequent to Labour Court Recommendation No 16218. It refers to “existing DART drivers wishing to return to Diesel driving can be facilitated”. In the Court’s view this statement was a concession by the Company to the DART Drivers albeit they had relinquished their seniority rights in respect of Connolly 1 &2 Depots and were compensated for doing so.
The matter before the Court has arisen in the context of voluntary severance opportunities in the Company. The Court notes that both sides accept that seniority for voluntary severance purposes is determined by the business requirements of the company and is depot specific.
The Court is of the view that the DART drivers do not have seniority rights in respect of voluntary severance in Connolly 1&2 depots given that the payment awarded under Labour Court Recommendation No 16218 was in compensation for relinquishing such seniority. Accordingly, the Court does not find in favour of the Unions’ claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th July, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.