FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NBRU UNITE TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Changes to Voluntary Severance Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to changes to the terms of the Employer's Voluntary Severance Scheme.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th April, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2017. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
Historically, Iarnr�d Eireann (“the Company”) engaged collectively with the Trade Unions in relation to the terms of any proposed voluntary severance agreements. However, in 2015 the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, in conjunction with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, made an executive decision regarding the terms of any future voluntary severance schemes across the CIE Group of Companies. That executive decision was communicated to C�ras Iompar Eireann and to the Company by letter dated 21 July 2015. The decision, inter alia, proposed that any future voluntary severance scheme should be based on Health Service Executive (HSE) norms but should not be extended to salaried employees aged 60 and above. The letter of 21 July 2015 directed the company to “advise the relevant CIE Trade Unions of the above arrangements”.
Management at the Company purported to do this by letter dated 16 October 2015 in which it informed the Unions that, “Both government departments have sanctioned voluntary severance to age 66 for wages grade employees however, voluntary severance for salaries employees is approved up to age 60 only.” The Unions’ position is that they interpreted the Company’s letter as providing them with an opportunity to enter into negotiations regarding the application of the proposed scheme, particularly to those of their members who are salaried and who are members of the 1951 Superannuation Scheme. It was only in November 2016 – when they were eventually given sight to the original decision communicated by the Department in its letter of 21 July 2015 – that the Unions became aware of the absolute finality of the Department’s decision not to extend voluntary severance terms to salaried employees aged 60 and above.
The Unions clearly articulated to the Court that they now accept the executive nature of the decision but they are, nevertheless, seeking the Court to recommend that a ‘grace period’ be put in place to allow their salaried members aged 60 and above to apply for any future voluntary scheme. The Unions’ request is predicated on what they regard as the unilateral nature of the Department’s decision in respect of which they were denied any opportunity to negotiate, contrary to the long-standing practice in the Company.
Recommendation
The Court has noted the Unions’ position and finds it regrettable that the Company took almost a year and a half to copy the Department’s letter to 21 July 2015 to Union representatives. Nevertheless, the Court has no jurisdiction to uphold the Unions’ claim in the circumstances of this case. The Court is not empowered to recommend variations be applied to the executive decisions of government departments.
For this reason the claim fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
9th June 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.