Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87103 Case Number: LCR11124 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C.I.E. - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of two stores issuers for upgrading.
Recommendation:
The submissions made by the parties and the evidence presented at
the hearing does not enable the Court to come to a conclusion on
the question of upgrading the two stores issuers involved in the
claim. The Court considers that the parties should have a job
evaluation undertaken to determine the relative value of these two
jobs in relation to those of the storekeepers in Dublin City
Services. The parties might also consider that there would be
merit in extending this exercise to include the jobs of stores
issuers in other provincial areas.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87103 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11124
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11124
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of two stores issuers for upgrading.
Background:
2. Under a 1976 productivity agreement in the Company stores
issuers were graded as engineering operatives group 1 in the
Company's grading structure. At present the Company employs a
total of 72 group 1 engineering operatives engaged on stores -
issuing duties at the Company's central stores at Inchicore and
Broadstone and at provincial services garages throughout the
country.
3. In 1978 stores issuers in the Dublin City Services garages
were upgraded to the position of storekeeper and afforded salary
status by the Company, on the basis that they performed more
responsible duties than other stores issuers. These employees
were already being paid a differential of 10% to 12% over other
issuers on foot of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in 1975.
The current annual basic pay scales applying to both categories of
workers are as follows:
Engineering Operatives Group 1 Storekeepers Dublin City
Services
#6,290.78 x (11) - #7,599.64 #8,347.67 x (8) - #9,726.12
4. Since the introduction of the new grade of storekeeper in the
Dublin City Services area, a number of attempts have been made by
the unions concerned to have stores issuers employed in other
areas upgraded to the position of storekeeper as in the Dublin
City Services, but without success. One such claim was brought by
the Automobile, General Engineering and Mechanical Operatives'
Union (A.G.E.M.O.U.) in 1982 on behalf of 11 stores issuers
employed in the provincial services. This claim became the
subject of a Labour Court investigation. The Court, in Labour
Recommendation No. 7575, rejected the claim. Meanwhile, on-going
negotiations are taking place between the Company and the C.I.E.
Shop Workers Trade Union Group on a further productivity agreement
for engineering operatives.
5. In December, 1985, the Union served a claim on the Company for
the upgrading of two stores issuers, employed in the Company's
provincial services at Broadstone and Dundalk, to the position of
storekeeper as in the Dublin City Services. The Company rejected
the claim and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred, on 31st January, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on
the 24th March, 1986, failed to resolve the matter and the claim
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 2nd May,
1986.
6. The Court adjourned the hearing to allow both parties to
define, by agreement if possible, the additional duties assigned
to stores issuers since 1982 - when the Labour Court investigated
a similar dispute (see paragraph 4 above). On 24th November,
1986, the Court received documentation from the Company setting
out, in joint statements, the respective positions of the Company
and the Union in relation to changes in stores issuers
(engineering operatives) duties since 1982 and the differences
between their job requirements and those of storekeepers in the
Dublin City Services. This documentation indicated 10 points of
disagreement between the parties. On 18th December, 1986, the
Court wrote to the parties seeking a joint statement on the
factual position in relation to the significant duties and
responsibilities attaching to the posts of the two stores issuers
concerned and those attaching to the post of storekeeper in Dublin
City Services, together with changes which have taken place in the
duties of stores issuers at Dundalk and Broadstone garages since
1982. However, the parties subsequently informed the Court that
their final position was as outlined in the documentation referred
to above and that no further agreement between them was possible.
The Court hearing was resumed on 26th March, 1986 (an earlier date
was arranged but this was unsuitable to the parties) and the 10
points of disagreement between the parties on the claim were each
discussed in detail without any further agreement being reached.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) Major changes within the Company in recent years, such
as the introduction of new bus fleets and a further
productivity agreement for craftworkers have resulted
in an increase in the work of stores personnel.
Arising from this, the two workers concerned are now
doing work comparable to storekeepers in the Dublin
City Services (details supplied to the Court). Having
regard to their job specification, the only two items
which they do not do and which are carried out by the
storekeepers are, A.V.M. and fuel stocks. The reason
they are not doing A.V.M. is because this only applies
to the Dublin City Services and while they are willing
to look after fuel they are not required to do so at
present.
(ii) At a meeting between the Company and the Union to
discuss the situation of the two workers concerned, the
Company undertook to compare their duties with those of
storekeepers in the Dublin City Service. Subsequently
the Company, having carried out its examination,
informed the Union that the work being done in
Broadstone and Dundalk fell short of that appropriate
to the position of storekeeper. In a further meeting
between the parties to discuss the findings, however,
it transpired that the Company failed to examine the
job of storekeeper prior to the examination of the
appropriate work at Broadstone and Dundalk. In these
circumstances, the examination carried out was invalid.
(iii) The Union is satisfied that the two workers concerned
should be upgraded and following rejection of this by
the Company it advised the workers not to take on any
extra work. However, this brought about immediate
threats of suspensions of the workers by the Company.
(iv) Major changes have taken place in the Broadstone stores
over the past 10 years. In this period staffing levels
there have been reduced, the stores area has been
expanded while the number of vehicles attached to
Broadstone has greatly increased (details supplied to
the Court). Changes have also taken place arising from
the introduction of the computer. These changes have
given the stores issuer increased responsibility
without the necessary authority. The duties and
responsibility of the stores issuer in the Dundalk
stores has also increased over the years (details
supplied to the Court). Storekeepers in the Dublin
City Services, however, with the same responsibility
and workload as these workers are part of the
supervisory staff and are treated as such by the staff
of their garages.
(v) Having regard to the job specification of the two
workers concerned (details supplied to the Court) it is
clear that the standard of work which they are required
to do is above that which the Company would normally
expect from a stores issuer. In these circumstances,
the Union's claim is a valid one and should be
conceded.
(vi) The claim should be judged on its merits and not
rejected on the basis of the possible repercussive
effects its concession might have on the Company, or on
the Company's plea of inability to pay.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The Company does not accept that the duties performed
by the two workers concerned and the duties of
storekeepers in the Dublin City Services are similar.
This position was upheld by a Rights Commissioner who,
in 1975, having examined the duties of stores issuers
in the Dublin City Services and other stores issuers,
including those at Broadstone and Dundalk garages,
agreed that issuers in the Dublin City Services had
greater responsibilities. Subsequently, the stores -
issuing job in the Dublin City Services was
re-organised and the staff involved re-graded as
storekeepers.
(b) In 1982 the Labour Court investigated a claim that the
other store-issuing staff, including those at
Broadstone garage, should be re-graded as storekeepers
on the basis of duties performed but the Court did not
recommend concession of the claim, (Recommendation No.
7575 refers). Since then there has been no significant
change in the responsibilities of the Broadstone and
Dundalk staff which would warrant any change in their
status.
(c) Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects
by way of similar claims from other engineering
operatives, not only those employed in other provincial
garages but also those employed in the central stores
at Inchicore and Broadstone. In fact such a claim was
made by the unions concerned on behalf of the
engineering operatives in those areas but the unions
agreed that they would pursue the matter within the
context of productivity negotiations. These
negotiations are still in progress.
(d) Given that the duties of engineering operatives engaged
on stores - issuing duties have not changed since
Labour Court Recommendation No. 7575, concession of the
Union's claim could result in the storekeepers in the
Dublin City Services claiming restoration of their
differential, having regard to the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation of 1975 and the
subsequent additional responsibilities placed on them.
(e) The possible implications arising from the upgrading of
the two workers concerned to storekeeper status, would
result in a substantial additional cost for the
Company, taking account of superannuation payments
(details supplied to the Court). Given the severe
financial constraints under which the Company at
present operates, the limitations imposed on it by the
Government in the matter of subvention and the cost of
the 25th wage round to the Company, such an additional
cost could not be sustained.
(f) The 1976 productivity agreement was made possible by
the elimination of multiple differential gradings and
rates of pay, and by the introduction of flexibilities,
so as to merge all adult non-skilled engineering
shopworkers into only two grades-Engineering Operatives
Group 1 and Group 2. The former grade of stores issuer
was merged into Group 1 and has benefited by an extra
#26 per week at current pay rates. If individual
former grades, and particularly if individual
applicants within a grade, are to be taken out of the
engineering operative structure other applicants could
seek to make a similar case and the benefits of the
productivity agreement would inevitably be undermined.
(g) In view of the circumstances outlined above, the claim
must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The submissions made by the parties and the evidence presented at
the hearing does not enable the Court to come to a conclusion on
the question of upgrading the two stores issuers involved in the
claim. The Court considers that the parties should have a job
evaluation undertaken to determine the relative value of these two
jobs in relation to those of the storekeepers in Dublin City
Services. The parties might also consider that there would be
merit in extending this exercise to include the jobs of stores
issuers in other provincial areas.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
___________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
23rd April, 1987
T.McC./J.C.