FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payment of average pay while absent due to railway line fatalities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to payments made to Train Drivers absent from work in the event of the occurrence of railway line fatalities. The Unions referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th April, 2017. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions submitted a claim to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, (the Act). The issue in dispute relates to a claim for average earnings, whist absent, in the aftermath of encountering a fatality on the Line. The matter came before the Court on 26th April 2016. As the Court was concerned at the issue being referred under Section 20(1) of the Act, as distinct from the normal course of a referral under Section 26(1) of the Act, it directed the parties to engage in further discussions on the issue, with the assistance of the WRC is necessary and if no resolution could be found, then by joint referral to the Court.
The issue was referred back to the Court by the Unions on 23rdFebruary 2017 under Section 20(1) of the Act, as the parties had failed to reach agreement and there was no agreement on a joint referral to the Court.
There appears to be some confusion on the part of the Company about the referral, however, today’s case was set up as a Section 20(1) referral, with only one side being bound by the outcome. The Court is surprised that the issue was returned to the Court in that manner.
The Court has now made it clear to the parties that in circumstances such as this where there are well established procedures for dealing with collective disputes between the parties, the Court does not expect the Unions’ claim to be dealt with under these restrictions. Where there are such well established procedures and both parties are equally familiar with the Labour Court processes, it is to be expected that issues such as this will come before the Court without one side being bound by the outcome in advance.
On that basis the Court recommends that both parties should actively engage, without delay on the issue in dispute, use the services of the WRC if necessary and if no resolution can be found then the issue should be referred back to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Act.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th April 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.