Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93397
Case Number: AD9384
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 73/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having noted the many points made at the hearing, the Court is
not satisfied that the Union is able to sustain the finding of the
Rights Commissioner "that the earnings of the claimant will
diminish" and accordingly it upholds the appeal by the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93397 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 73/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as an engineering operative
in the wagon works depot. Together with a colleague he worked
week-end overtime on a regular basis. The colleague retired in
March, 1992. In April, 1992 manning and maintenance changes
occurred as a result of the Vicemen/Train Examiners Agreement
which provided for the elimination of that category and the return
of some of the workers to the engineering operatives pool. The
worker concerned was not party to this agreement. However, he
claimed that the rostering changes resulted in a loss of overtime
earnings. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. In his findings the
Rights Commissioner stated "It is equally clear to me that the
earnings of the claimant will diminish with the result of the
subsequent Agreement covering others who will now share the
overtime." On the 26th May, 1993 the Rights Commissioner issued
his recommendation as follows:
"I cannot recommend that the claimant retains 100% of the
overtime on offer. Instead I recommend that he receives #500
compensation for the loss. I do this on condition that he
accepts the full implications of the later Agreement on his
overtime and that he will continue to co-operate in every way
as heretofore".
On the 6th July, 1993 the Company appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick on the 30th
September, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has suffered no loss of earnings as a
result of the changes in rostering arrangements. His earnings
have increased since April, 1992 (details supplied to the
Court). As no loss in earnings has been incurred in this case
there is no basis for compensation. The Court has upheld this
position in numerous recommendations.
2. There is no agreement in place stating that the worker
should have 100% participation in available weekend working.
The Company must retain the right to utilise staff to meet
work requirements.
3. Concession of the claim could lead to repercussive claims
from other engineering operatives not covered by the
Vicemen/Train Examiners Agreement.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In March, 1992 Management agreed that the worker concerned
would cover his retired colleague's overtime where possible.
Subsequently, the Company bought out an overtime entitlement
for fitters and vicemen and they received compensation.
Having concluded the agreement they subsequently claimed a
share of the worker's overtime. Management proceeded to
roster overtime which resulted in the worker's overtime being
shared with his colleagues. However, all of the overtime
available to these workers was not shared with the worker
concerned.
2. The terms of the Engineering Operatives Productivity
Agreement of September, 1992 were not applied fairly to the
worker concerned, in that he did not receive an equitable
distribution of overtime in accordance with that agreement.
His overtime earning opportunities were reduced without
consultation.
DECISION:
5. Having noted the many points made at the hearing, the Court is
not satisfied that the Union is able to sustain the finding of the
Rights Commissioner "that the earnings of the claimant will
diminish" and accordingly it upholds the appeal by the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.