INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Claim for expenses.
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of a worker who is a relief signalman based in Maynooth. The worker receives €18.35 per day expenses for working away from base (in Clonsilla). In 2000/2001 a new signalling system was set up in Clonsilla which saw signalmen moving from their old cabin to a new Emergency Control Panel (ECP). Following objections from staff because of what they saw as confined working conditions it was agreed that they would receive a daily expense of €18.35 for working in the new conditions. The Union believes that the worker should also receive this expense when he works as a relief signalman in Clonsilla. The Company disputes the claim stating that it is, in effect, a double payment for doing the same work.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of July, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of October, 2006.
3. 1. An agreement was reached that the signalman working in Clonsilla would receive a specific payment (€18.35 per day) for working in a confined space. When the worker concerned is assigned to Clonsilla as a relief signalman he should also receive the payment. The away-from-base expense of €18.35 that he receives is a separate issue.
4. 1. The worker is in receipt of the appropriate remuneration in terms of expense payments, in line with other colleagues either whole-time or relief in Clonsilla. There are two other relief signalmen who have not made a similar claim.
2. If the claim were to be conceded it would lead to serious knock-on claims and would be without precedent in the Company.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd November, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.