FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Employer's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No. CA-00001797-001. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for the application of a Collective Agreement surrounding overtime requirements and rates. It is the Union's claim, on behalf of its member, that the Employer has withheld payment of a night duty allowance contrary to the terms of the Agreement. The Union is seeking retrospective payment of the amount allegedly owed to the Claimant as well as an undertaking that the Employer will honour the Agreement going forward and apply the night duty rate to the Claimant accordingly. The Employer refutes the Union's claim arguing that the agreement is inappropriate to the Claimant's role in this location. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th July 2016, the Adjudication Officer issued her decision as follows:
"I note the Company has tried to reach agreement on an alternative or amendment with the Unions on the issue. However in the absence of any such alternative or amendment, the commitment to make up the payment of the night allowance up to the maximum of 12 weeks contained in the collective agreement is clear. The respondent should pay to the complainant the outstanding difference, and honour the agreement until such time as any amendment can be agreed".
On the 9th August, 2016 the Employer appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th October, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer is acting in breach of the terms of the agreement by refusing to pay the outstanding amount owing to the Claimant.
2. The Union is seeking immediate payment of the monies owed to the Claimant.
3. The Union is further seeking a commitment from the Employer to honour the terms of the agreement going forward.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that it has acted within the terms of the agreement at all times.
2. The Employer asserts that there are no monies owing to the Claimant.
3. The Employer contends that it is not in a position to pay the terms of the agreement to an employee where it is not warranted.
DECISION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
It is clear to the Court that the Company does not regard the operation of the 2012 agreement as appropriate in the case of the Claimant taking account of his location and the night work requirements arising there.
The parties have made a collective agreement governing the arrangements as regards night working for the grade occupied by the Claimant. The Court supports the contention that agreements freely entered into should be honoured until such time as the parties make a fresh agreement.
In the current case the Court understands that the Trade Union is prepared, if requested by the Company, to engage through normal procedures to address any proposals the Company may have as regards the collective agreement of 2012 or in the alternative to address any specific issue the company may have as regards the application of that agreement to the Claimant.
The Court recommends that the 2012 Agreement should continue to apply to the Claimant each year, including 2014 and 2015, until such time as either the agreement is replaced by a new agreement or arrangements are agreed as regards the application of the 2012 agreement to the Claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
17th October 2016______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.