Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87507
Case Number: AD8762
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATE
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Company and the Group against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM 17,848 concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 14 workers employed in the Company's carriage and wagon department, Drogheda.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the information given to the Court (and which
was not available to the Rights Commissioner) that the work was
not transferred from the Limerick depot to an outside contractor
until 1985 the Court recommends that the Company's appeal against
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be upheld and the Union's
appeal be rejected.
The Court so decides.
Division:Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87507 THE LABOUR COURT AD6287
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 62 OF 1987
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
C.I.E. SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company and the Group against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM 17,848 concerning a claim for
compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 14 workers employed
in the Company's carriage and wagon department, Drogheda.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1983 the Group claimed compensation for loss of
overtime earnings on behalf of the workers on the basis that work
normally carried out at Drogheda i.e. painting and cleaning of
cement wagons was transferred to Limerick. At a subsequent
meeting held in November, 1983 the Company rejected the claim and
contended that the cutback in overtime was due to the cutbacks
arising from the curtailment of Government expenditure and the
adverse effects of the recession. The Company wrote to the
Group in December, 1983, confirming its position. In 1987 the
Group reactivated their claim (which was for 2.50 times the annual
loss incurred by the workers) and the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
Following an investigation held on 5th June, 1987 the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 8th June,
1987:-
" The Company cannot be liable for earnings lost through work
being transferred elsewhere within the system but the
employees ought to get some recognition for losses due to a
transfer of work to a contractor, that is the cleaning and
painting of wagons.
I estimate that this represents approximately 25% of the loss
and on the basis of six months compensation I recommend that
this claim be met through Iarnrod Eireann conceding one eight
of a year's loss to the nine operatives who are still in
Drogheda: the four who have retired and the man who has
transferred to Dundalk are not entitled to any
compensation."
The Company and the Unions' appealed the recommendation under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour
Court. A Court hearing was held on 20th July, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (a) The Group in appealing against this Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation, believes that a
re-organisation has taken place and was clearly
established by them at the Rights Commissioner's
hearing. It has always been the policy in C.I.E. and
indeed now in the three new companies where there is a
re-organisation to pay compensation as per the formula,
which is two and a half times the annual loss.
The Group is prepared to go some of the way with
Management on the level of compensation to be paid, but
believes that the amount of compensation put forward as
terms of settlement by the Rights Commissioner would be
totally inadequate. We would suggest that one and a
half times the annual loss in this case would be seen
to be doing justice to the workers.
(b) When work is transferred from one location to the other
within C.I.E. and where work is given to an outside
contractor, we believe that compensation terms should
be paid as this is the basis of a re-organisation. It
is grossly unfair for the workers to accept this total
and drastic cutback in their earnings, without some
level of compensation to ease the burden.
(c) It seems that this change that has taken place and the
cutback in the workers earnings is now an established
fact and they will never recover from this loss.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The cutback in earnings was entirely due to the
serious financial situation of the Company. This
situation still prevails and if the Company is to
remain viable and maintain jobs it must improve its
financial performance, and this means keeping
expenditure to the very minimum necessary for its
essential operations.