LCR21656

Union’s Position

It is the Union’s position that a number of their members in different locations have received the 2.5% bonus in circumstances where the totality of their “call-outs” have been counted as part of the eighteen required to qualify for the bonus 2.5%. This has been the situation as far as they are aware going back to the inception of the allowance. While they accept that in some areas the bonus is only given after eighteen call-outs where workers were physically present they believe that is the wrong interpretation of the agreement. The Unions are relying on a letter dated 20^thJune 2002 to support their position and in particular the following sentence

“That when it is found that a Supervisor has been called out for accident or other consultation on more than 18 occasions in any calendar year, they shall be granted an additional Call-out Allowance of 2.5% in respect of that year”.

The Unions maintain that being called out or other consultation does not require that the Permanent Way Inspectors are in attendance but could entail consultation to deal with the incident remotely by telephone.

Employer’s position

The Employer accepts that in a number of areas the incorrect interpretation has been applied for a number of years. The different interpretations only came to light in 2017 during an audit of on-call/call-out allowances across the organisation. Now that the areas have been identified they are obliged to ensure that the correct interpretation is applied across the organisation. The employer’s position is that the agreement clearly states that a Supervisor has to be “called out”. They rely on the same sentence in the agreement as quoted by the Trade Unions but their view is that the attending emergencies or other consultations is predicated on the worker being physically called out.

Discussion

There is no dispute that being “on-call” covers both being in attendance and dealing with issues remotely by telephone and that this attracts an allowance of 10%. The letter of the 20^thJune 2002 that both parties are relying on references call-out as opposed to on-call. Documents dated May 2006 and November 2007 submitted to the Court reference the 10 % on-call allowance as opposed to a call-out allowance. However, page 3 of the November 2007 document states “parallel with the 10% on-call payment an arrangement has existed for the payment of a call-out allowance of 2.5%”. In the Court’s opinion, this clearly indicates that there are two categories of payments.

Taking all of the above into account and applying an ordinary interpretation to the words call-out the Court finds that the call-out bonus does not apply to answering calls at home. The Court is conscious that the disputed interpretation has applied in practice in some areas for a long time. The Court therefore recommends that for the calendar years 2017 and 2018 the parties should continue to claim the 2.5% allowance in the manner which they have previously claimed it. The appropriate payments to be made to the parties no later than 1st April 2018 and 1^stApril 2019. With effect from 1^stJanuary 2019 the 2.5% bonus agreement should be read and applied in a manner that does not include answering calls at home and only includes actual physical call-outs.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
LS______________________
12 February 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.