Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87328 Case Number: LCR11295 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CIE - and - CIE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Dispute concerning the payment of compensation (integration payment) to workers mandatorily transferred, the retention of road travel passes and adherence to the existing seniority procedure in respect of workers affected by the closure of the Broadstone works.
Recommendation:
5. The matters which are the subject of this referral have
previously been dealt with by the Court in Labour Court
Recommendation Number 11038. The terms of that recommendation
apply to the employees who have yet to transfer to Inchicore
works.
The Court notes that it is now proposed that Irish Bus and Dublin
Bus stores will continue to be based in Broadstone and that the
two companies intend to retain the stores personnel in that
location. This is an alteration in the position which obtained
when the Court heard the original complaint.
The Court is of the view that employees in Broadstone should be
given the option of becoming stores personnel attached to
Broadstone on the basis of seniority in the depot and in
accordance with the Engineering Operatives Agreement of 1976.
However personnel who wish to exercise this option should do so
within a period of four weeks from the date of issue of this
recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87328 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11295
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11295
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
C.I.E. SHOPWORKERS' TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of compensation (integration
payment) to workers mandatorily transferred, the retention of road
travel passes and adherence to the existing seniority procedure in
respect of workers affected by the closure of the Broadstone
works.
BACKGROUND:
2. The closure of Broadstone workshop was the subject of a
previous investigation by the Labour Court. The Court issued LCR
No. 11038 dated 4th March, 1987 following the investigation and it
is attached as an appendix to this recommendation. Initially in
1986, there were 171 workers attached to Broadstone workshops. Of
these 24 will not be transferred as it is the intention to retain
the stores for Bus Eireann, and Bus Atha Cliath at Broadstone.
Payment of the recommended compensation, the standard disturbance
allowance, has been paid to most workers, and is being processed
for those who transferred recently. The Group on reconsideration
decided to refer the issues at 1 above to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. The Company declined an invitation
to attend a conciliation conference. The Group referred the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
was held on 4th June, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (a) This payment was originally claimed by the Group in
respect of all ex-Broadstone workers. As such it has
been rejected by the Court. Upon re-consideration the
Group feel that this claim should be made in respect of
the 80 or so workers who remained in Broadstone to the
end and who are subject to mandatory transfer.
What we are dealing with here is the closure of a long
established mechanical workshop and the extinguishing
of over a century of our engineering tradition.
Nevertheless, despite the deep suspicion of the
workforce about the necessity to close the works, they
have co-operated fully with Management in all aspects
of the move even to the extent of assisting in the
dismantling and moving of machinery. Similarly, full
co-operation was forthcoming in recent emergency work
on the bus fleet. This involved allowing workers from
other locations to come into Broadstone, and work
substantial amounts of overtime.
Another aspect of the Broadstone closure which was not
fully apparent to us at the time of the closure, was
that a substantial part of the reason for the closure
was the decision by the Company to go out of the engine
overhaul business and to contract what remained to a
private company. The Group consider that this
constitutes a substantial re-organisation and that the
workers mandatorily transferred as a result should
receive some compensation.
(b) Retention of Road Passes:
A number of workers mandatorily transferred will be
transferred to the railway workshops rather than the
B.M.S. In so transferring, they will lose the right to
a bus pass. The workers concerned are strongly of the
view that road travel privileges are more valuable than
rail travel privileges as they may be used every
working day, while rail travel privileges are of the
nature that they will be used a number of times per
year. We would ask the Court to note that the cost of
a staff commuter ticket is #9 per month.
There is ample precedents for the concession of this
claim. Road shopworkers who were employed in the Great
Northern Railway retained both their road and rail
travel privileges when the G.N.R. was assimilated into
CIE in 1958. It should also be noted that in many
disputes over travel privileges the Company claim that
their hands are tied by international regulations
concerning travel facilities. However, the concession
of this case is solely at the discretion of the
Company.
(c) Adherence by Company to agreement concerning seniority:
This aspect of the claim covers only engineering
operatives. It has long been custom and practice in
the Company that transfers are dealt with on a
seniority basis. This procedure is set out in appendix
5 of the 1976 productivity agreement for engineering
operatives. In this case, senior staff are being
forced to transfer, while junior staff are remaining in
the Broadstone location, in the stores. The Company's
excuse for this breach in procedures is that special
training is required for stores work. The Group would
submit that the Company cannot have it both ways; at a
recent Court hearing on a regrading claim for stores
issuers, Company representatives stated that their work
could be done by any engineering operative. We would
ask the Court to examine the total conflict between the
two positions adopted by the Company.
The position in the stores has been exacerbated by the
fact that the Company has totally changed its stance
since the original proposal to close Broadstone was
made. While originally there was to be a total closure
now it is proposed to maintain some stores there. Thus
senior men in the depot see themselves being
mandatorily transferred, while junior men remain. This
is contrary to custom and practice, to the 1976
agreement, and to the Company's own statement to the
Labour Court in the stores issuers case.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The issues referred to the Court by the Group to-day
have been dealt with at the previous investigation
held by the Court on 23rd January, 1987.
(ii) The Company's position regarding payment of
additional compensation has not altered since the
original hearing other than further unnecessary
costs have accrued due to the continued operation of
an uneconomic workshop. These additional costs, in
the present competitive climate, diminishes further
the Company's ability to pay compensation and
jeopardises job prospects.
(iii) In the past workers were mandatorily transferred out
of Broadstone due to staff surpluses there, to fill
vacancies elsewhere. In all these cases only the
standard disturbance allowance was paid.
(iv) With the formation of three new companies and
consequent re-grouping, it is the Company's view,
that in the short term at least, a greater degree of
staff mobility will be essential for economic
survival. Taking the Company's financial situation
into account, to pitch disturbance or integration
payments at a high level would set an unaffordable
and undesirable precedent. Ministerial approval for
these payments was only granted as a result of
vigorous representations and in the present national
economic climate, it is the Company's view that
Ministerial approval for any additional payment
would not be forthcoming. Since the Labour Court
investigation the Group have not put forward any new
proposals on this matter that would support their
claim for additional payment.
(v) In all the circumstances there is no valid reason
for departing from the existing arrangements for the
staff now in the process of moving from Broadstone
to Inchicore.
(vi) In the case of the travel facilities there are long
standing arrangements, where staff transferring from
one function or department to another are afforded
the travel facilities applicable to the section in
which they are employed. There are numerous
recommendations from the Court and Rights
Commissioners supporting these arrangements (details
supplied to the Court).
(vii) On the question of seniority, overall service will
not be affected by the transfer. Depot service on
the other hand is an arrangement in accordance with
the wishes of some trade unions, that depot
seniority be taken into account in selecting workers
for transfer. This is not however a universal trade
union view. This arrangement when made did not
envisage the transfer of a complete works and was
intended to cover the normal movement of workers
between depots. It is necessary in order to
minimise disruption and to avoid any unnecessary
confusion to transfer workers who are familiar with
the work with their particular sections. The
Company, in an effort to preserve depot seniority
indicated that all staff due to transfer to
Inchicore would be deemed to have transferred on the
one date (21st April, 1987) irrespective of the
actual date on which they transferred.
(viii) The arrangements that the Company have implemented
are appropriate given the requirement that complete
work sections must transfer with all the material
equipment and staff of each appropriate section.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The matters which are the subject of this referral have
previously been dealt with by the Court in Labour Court
Recommendation Number 11038. The terms of that recommendation
apply to the employees who have yet to transfer to Inchicore
works.
The Court notes that it is now proposed that Irish Bus and Dublin
Bus stores will continue to be based in Broadstone and that the
two companies intend to retain the stores personnel in that
location. This is an alteration in the position which obtained
when the Court heard the original complaint.
The Court is of the view that employees in Broadstone should be
given the option of becoming stores personnel attached to
Broadstone on the basis of seniority in the depot and in
accordance with the Engineering Operatives Agreement of 1976.
However personnel who wish to exercise this option should do so
within a period of four weeks from the date of issue of this
recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th_July,_1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX 1
CD8712 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11038
CC861687 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11038
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
CIE SHOPWORKERS' TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an integration payment for approximately 194
workshop staff displaced by the closure of the Broadstone works.
BACKGROUND:
2. The work carried out in the Chief Mechanical Engineer's
(Rail) Department consists of the planned maintenance, heavy
overhaul and heavy casualty work on all of the Company's rail and
road vehicles and equipment. The work on rail vehicles is carried
out at the rail workshops Inchicore and on the road fleet at the
body maintenance shop within the Inchicore complex and also at the
road workshops at Broadstone.
The Company, following a review in late 1985, decided to move the
road workshops and stores from Broadstone to Inchicore. The
Company sought and obtained permission from the Minister for
Communications to pay the standard disturbance allowance, even
though there is an embargo on this type of payment. The Union
Group however, sought an integration payment of #550 per person in
addition to disturbance payment, arguing that a long history of
integration payments exists. Local agreement could not be reached
and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 26th September, 1986. A conciliation conference
was held on 28th October, 1986, however no agreement was reached
on the Group's proposal and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 23rd January, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (i) The idea of an integration payment is not new in CIE.
It came into being as a consequence of the railways
re-organisation in the late 1970's. These payments
are meant to compensate for the fact that when
workers move to a new depot, they become junior.
Additionally all the workers in the amalgamated
depots have diminished promotional prospects and
overtime.
(ii) In 1984, with the re-organisation following the
introduction of the DART system, an integration
payment of #500 per worker was made to traffic staff
in Connolly and Pearse stations. Subsequently, when
the carriage maintenance function was transferred
from Pearse to Connolly station, the workers
concerned received an integration payment of #500 per
worker.
(iii) It is the Group's view that the staff concerned are
participating in a change which is quantitatively
much greater than the changes which occurred when the
carriage maintenance functions in Pearse and Connolly
stations were amalgamated. They are involved in a
major re-organisation of the Company's engineering
operations, accepting major changes in work practices
and organisation as well as moving their work
location. This is why the disturbance payment
offered by the Company has been rejected as
inadequate.
(iv) In the current situation of the Company, a certain
amount of depot re-organisation is inevitable.
However the Group consider that such re-organisation
should continue to be accompanied by integration
payments, as it has in the past.
(v) Some of the staff will be transferred from road
schemes to rail sections. This will involve a loss
of travel facilities currently enjoyed. This can be
a great disadvantage to staff who currently use the
free bus pass and now have to make use of a rail pass
instead.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Claims for disturbance compensation following the
transfer of employees, within the Company, have been
made regularly in the past. The standard allowance for
a change of depot within an urban area is:-
#70.00 for the first five years.
# 9.80 for each completed year of service thereafter.
Since 1st November, 1984, the Minister for the Public
Service placed an embargo on this type of payment. The
Company has been able to obtain special permission to
pay the standard disturbance allowance. The Company in
its present financial position cannot afford to make
further compensatory payments, particularly when the
primary purpose of the transfer is to reduce costs.
(b) In some instances the employees involved in transfers
have rejected the standard disturbance and referred
their claim for greater compensation to the Labour
Court. In Labour Court Recommendation No's, 6503, 7825
and 8444 the Court has not recommended a higher level
of payment. (Details provided to the Court).
(c) The Union Group, in support of their claim, refer to
the payment which was made to employees when depots at
Pearse and Connolly stations were amalgamated. This
payment was part of a settlement made with the rail
guards on the resolution of a complex problem when the
depots merged on the introduction of the DART system.
The integration of the maintenance depots was also
occasioned by the electrification of the system, and a
similar payment was made to the staff concerned. The
staff of the depots at Pearse and Connolly stations
transferred from day work to a two cycle shift.
Agreement was also reached that in emergencies, staff
attached to the carriage maintenance and valetting
depot would assist in the locomotive maintenance-depot.
Neither of these two matters arise in this case.
(d) The transfer of staff does not affect their promotional
opportunities. Promotion is based on the applicants
suitability for the job and the selection process is
open to all. Similarly, there is no question of
recently transferred staff being given the least
congenial work at the new location. The work is
allocated by the foreman and this has not given rise to
any problems with the staff already transferred.
(e) The Union Group refer to the different travel
facilities which apply to road and rail workers. The
majority of staff will have no change in their travel
facilities. A small number who are transferring to
rail workshops will have different travel facilities.
These matters have been the subject of Labour Court
investigations and all recommendations have upheld the
Company's long standing practice that an employee is
afforded the facilities applicable to the section in
which he is employed. No compensation has ever been
recommended.
(f) Effectively the transfers are designed to protect
employment. The volume of work at Broadstone has
fallen to such a degree that the cost of production has
risen sharply due to the virtually fixed overhead costs
at Broadstone. Were this allowed to continue
unchecked, the Company would have to seriously consider
closing the works resulting in the loss of many jobs.
Transferring work to Inchicore with a consequent
reduction of costs enables the Company to retain staff
in employment on work that would otherwise be
discontinued.
(g) Concession of a claim of this type which it is
estimated would cost the Company about #500,000 would
create an undesirable precedent within the Company,
where transfer of staff, both on a temporary and
permanent basis has and will continue to be an
essential feature of the Company's country wide
operations in order to obtain the fullest utilisation
of the Company's resources and maximum efficiency in
the deployment of personnel at all levels throughout
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the Company's offer on disturbance payment is
appropriate in the circumstances and should be accepted in
settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___4th____March,___1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman