Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87311 Case Number: LCR11260 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CIE - and - ICTU (CIE TRADE UNION GROUP);NBU |
Claims, on behalf of approximately 14,200 workers (all grades), for a pay increase under the 26th round plus improved conditions of service.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
recommends as follows in relation to the various aspects of the
26th Round claim:
Pay - Lead in payment of #30.00,
2.50% with a minimum of #4 per week from 1st March to 30th
September, 1987, and a further 2% with a minimum of #3.50
from 1/10/87 to 30th April, 1988 (16 month agreement).
Annual Leave - An increase of one day in annual leave commencing
in 1988 leave year.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claims for
reduction in working hours, payment of meal allowance and Saturday
rate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th June, 1987 ---------------
DH/PG Deputy Chairman
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87311 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11260
CC87148 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11260
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN (CIE)
and
CIE GROUP OF UNIONS
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION (NBU)
Subject:
1. Claims, on behalf of approximately 14,200 workers (all
grades), for a pay increase under the 26th round plus improved
conditions of service.
Background:
2. The 25th wage round for operative/supervisory grades expired
on the 31st December, 1986 and for executive, clerical and allied
grades on the 28th February, 1987. By letter dated the 5th
November, 1986, the NBU lodged the following 26th round claim with
Management:
- #20 per week pay increase,
- introduction of a meal allowance for all city-based bus
crews,
- an increase of two days in the annual leave entitlement,
- the payment of time and a half for work performed up to
1.00 p.m. on Saturday and double time thereafter for that
day.
The ICTU Group's claim was made by letter dated the 25th November
and was for a new agreement from the expiry of the 25th round
based on ICTU guidelines for the 26th round. At a local level
meeting between the three parties on the 18th December, the ICTU
Group clarified its claim as being as follows:
- 10% single phase increase in basic pay, with a minimum
increase of #15 per week, from the expiry of the previous
round, for a twelve month period,
- reduction in the working week from 40 hours to 37.50,
- increase of two days in the annual leave entitlement.
By letter dated the 14th January, 1987, the Company responded by
offering an agreement of 18 months' duration comprising a six
months' pay pause followed by a pay increase of 3%. All other
claims were rejected. As this was unacceptable to the Unions, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 22nd January, 1987. A conciliation conference was
held on the 2nd March, 1987 at which no agreement was reached and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 15th May, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (a) There has been a severe erosion in the claimants' living
standards over the last number of years by way of
inflation, taxation, increased PRSI and health
contributions. In addition, wage rates for many grades
in the Company are extremely low and successive
percentage increases have tended to worsen the relative
position and confine these workers in a low-pay trap.
(b) Of 685 26th round settlements, covering 77,155 workers,
the average increase was 6.8% (5.95% annualised) and the
average duration was for 13.7 months. In the semi-State
sector, the Court has already recommended 5% with no pay
pause over fifteen months for Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta.
(c) The concept of a wage pause as laid down by the
Government is totally unacceptable, as previous pay
pauses have only succeeded in depressing the claimants'
wage rates (details of previous pay pauses supplied to
the Court).
(d) The Court should note that for many years wage increases
in the Company have been expressed in percentage terms,
the result of which is a small increase for those on the
lower rates of pay. In an effort to correct the
imbalance which has occurred over the years, the Group
has sought a floor increase of #15 per week.
(e) The last three wage rounds covered the period from the
1st January, 1983 to the 31st December, 1986. During
this period all staff received a cumulative increase of
25.2%. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) movement from
November 1982 - February, 1987, was 29.70%, thus there
was a shortfall of 4.5%. However, this shortfall is
substantially more when full account is taken of income
tax, PRSI, health charges, etc.
(f) It is inevitable that the Company will make reference to
the so-called Government guidelines on pay in the public
sector. This claim relates to semi-State workers who
have absolutely no job security as is evidenced by the
fact that staff numbers have dropped by almost 700 since
the Group was last before the Court on the 25th round.
(g) The Court should, as in the past, ignore the Government's
attempt to limit its functions and influence its
recommendation. The Government does not negotiate with
the Unions - the Company does. If the Government choose
not to participate in negotiations on the 26th wage
round, it cannot now attempt to influence the result of
the Court's deliberations.
(h) The trade union movement has, under the auspices of the
ICTU, adopted a policy of seeking shorter working hours
and additional holidays in line with workers in other EEC
countries. Since this claim was last before the Court,
there have been a number of 24th, 25th and 26th round
settlements which provided for shorter hours and
additional holidays. Perhaps the most noteworthy of
these was in the printing industry, where a 39 hour week
is now the norm.
(i) The fact that the national unemployment figure is now
approximately 30,000 up on the figure when the Group was
last in the Court is a vindication of the arguments it
made at the time that shorter hours and additional
holidays is a way to combat job losses and create new
employment.
(j) Ireland's unemployment figure is the highest in the EEC
and many acknowledge that this figure will increase. The
Group therefore contends that there are lessons to be
learned from the sustained progress made in other
European countries. For example, in 1982, the French
government introduced by law a 39 hour working week and
claim that this initiative was responsible for saving
40,000 jobs in industry and 30,000 more in service
employment. In Belgium, a reduction in the working week
is claimed to have been responsible for saving and
creating in the region of 80,000 jobs.
NBU's arguments:
4. (a) The Union represents staff who are on the lowest basic
rates of pay in the Company, hence the claim for an
increase of #20 per week. Percentage increases have done
nothing in the past to help bridge the gap between those
who are lower paid and others who have high rates of pay.
The claimants' basic pay rate is approximately #130 per
week and the full application of the claim for #20 would
not even bring them into line with what would be expected
for the job that they have to undertake.
(b) It is not justifiable to have staff carry out such an
important role as the provision of public transport and
to take home less than #100 per week. This type of
remuneration leaves nothing but bad feeling and
disgruntled staff with low morale. If the public want a
reliable service and if the Company is to run a competent
and efficient one, then it will have to be paid for as it
is too much to expect that the service can be subsidised
by the depressed wages and living standards of the
claimants.
(c) Busworkers in particular have taken the brunt of all the
criticisms while at the same time suffering the indignity
of being close to the breadline. Based on their take
home pay, the Union's members are well below that which
qualifies for the supplementary welfare allowance. The
fact that the gross wages exceeds that amount means that
they do not qualify.
(d) The Union believes that there is good justification for
having a meal allowance paid to all city based crews.
Busworkers in particular leave their homes at various
hours of the morning while locomotive drivers work all
night on a twenty four hour basis. There is no ready
made ordinary meal times for the people who provide these
services and the provision of a meal allowance is
justified as meals are an expense incurred in their
carrying out their normal daily tasks. There is nothing
unique in the application of meal allowances. In fact,
in the Company, meal allowances are paid to provincial
staff under various headings.
(e) Because of the vagaries associated with the
implementation of transport services, the Union believes
that there is a greater need for relaxation during the
year and therefore the Union is seeking an increase of
two days in the annual leave entitlement. The
application of this extra leave will also bring about a
national movement in the employment situation. It is
only right that trade unions and employers should seek to
increase employment in any way they can and this would be
a genuine way of bringing that about.
(f) There has been no movement with regard to extra holidays
in recent years and it is time that this started again.
Some years ago it was not uncommon to have a day extra
added along with a national agreement.
(g) Some years ago bonus payments were paid for Saturday from
1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and from 6.00 p.m. onwards. This
was based on the fact that the majority of people working
in this country do not work on Saturdays. The
introduction of shift pay eliminated these payments and
the shift pay applied to Monday to Saturday inclusive.
This, however, does not take away from the fact that
Saturday is still a special day and the argument for
bringing in bonus payments is equally valid now.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) An increase of 10% with a minimum of #15 per week as
claimed by the ICTU Unions would cost an additional
#20.439 million per annum for all staff. The estimated
cost of concession of two additional days annual leave
is #0.956 million. Therefore, if the ICTU Unions'
claims were to be conceded in full to all staff the
total estimated additional annual cost to the Company
would be #28.651 million. The estimated cost of
applying an increase of #20 per week as claimed by the
NBU on behalf of its members, to all the Company's staff
would be #24.459 million. In addition, if the other
claims presented by this Union were to be conceded in
respect of all the Company's staff, additional costs of
#7.438 million would arise in respect of the claim for a
meal allowance; of #0.956 million in respect of the
claim for two additional days annual leave; and of
#4.429 million in respect of the claim for enhanced
Saturday payments. Thus, application of the NBU's
claims in full to all the Company's staff would cost an
additional #37.282 million in a full year.
(ii) The Company already has to meet in 1987 the carry-over
cost of the 25th pay round, amounting to #3.698 million
and representing the additional costs of pay increases
under the 25th round over and above those incurred in
1986. The estimated further additional cost of the
Company's offer of 3% with a six months' pay pause under
the 26th round is #2.613 million in 1987 and #5.559
million in a full year. As it has turned out after this
offer was made, and in the light of present information
about the amount of the Government subvention for CIE in
1987 (as detailed below) and the consequential serious
effects on CIE's finances, this offer must now be
regarded as more than reasonable.
(iii) Under the Government subvention policy, the subvention
of the Company each year is limited to one-third of
expenditure or one-half of revenue whichever is the
lesser; in addition, expenditure in real terms must be
reduced by 3.7% each year on the railway and 2.5% a year
on other activities and the Company's road freight and
rail sundries must operate on a profitable basis or else
be discontinued; also, the deficit on Dublin City
services must be halved by 31st December, 1989 and
provincial bus services must be profitable by 1989. Two
particular aspects of this policy should be noted;
firstly, that it requires a reduction in expenditure in
real terms by the amounts stated in each year up to 1989
and secondly, that it has been made clear by the
Government that the policy must be adhered to and the
subvention will not be increased. In fact for 1987, the
subvention has been reduced below the amount which the
formula stated above would yield.
Furthermore, in the matter of pay increases under the
present wage round, the Company must conform to
Government pay policy.
(iv) The Unions' claims must also be viewed in the context of
the actual and projected increases in the cost of
living. The 25th pay round in CIE operated for 17
months and, for the bulk of the staff, it ran from the
1st August, 1985 to 31st December, 1986. The CPI
figures are published quarterly and the practical
comparison is, therefore, for 18 months which gives a
more favourable comparison from the point of view of the
staff. Over the 18 months from mid-August, 1985 to
mid-February, 1987, the CPI (1982 base) rose from 123.3
to 129.7, an increase of 5.19 per cent. Over the
shorter 17 months period of the 25th round, the pay
increases to CIE staff were 4% plus 3% giving a
cumulative increase of 7.12 per cent or almost 2 per
cent above the increase in the CPI.
Similarly, looking at the projected rate of inflation
for 1987, it is evident that the Company's offer of a 3
per cent increase is entirely reasonable. The Central
Bank forecast of inflation for 1987, made in November
last, was 3.50%; in January, 1987 the Bank revised this
downward to 3.25% and in the Central Bank's latest
forecast it is reduced again to 3 per cent.
(v) Reference has been made by the Unions to the trend in
settlements emerging under the 26th round. At the
meeting with the Company on 18th December, it was
claimed by the Unions that this trend was averaging out
at 10%. By the time the conciliation conference was
convened on 2nd March they had revised this to 6%, on
the basis of a survey of 40,000 employees and 5.25% in
settlements covering 5,800 workers which involved
recommendations by the Labour Court. As recently as
April, the agreements reported nationally covered only
95,000 employees out of a total of some 1,000,000
employees, i.e. about 9.50% of the total workforce. This
is not a sufficient proportion from which to deduce a
trend in pay increases.
This is even more true in relation to the public sector.
No agreement has been negotiated in respect of the
public service nor any of the employments related to it
such as, the Gardai, Defence Forces, Local Authorities,
Health Boards, etc. A Labour Court recommendation was
issued for Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta but this has not
been implemented and in any event the circumstances in
CIE are not comparable with those in Aer Lingus and Aer
Rianta which have had substantial profits for some
years. The only settlement in a State-sponsored body
has been in the ESB and this was within the terms of the
Government pay policy.
(vi) The NBU pay claim on behalf of its members for an
increase of #20 per week would represent an increase in
basic pay of 11.3% for a locomotive driver, 15.1% for a
double-deck city bus driver and 15.4% for a double-deck
city bus conductor. The NBU argued that the existing
rates for busworkers are low. However, in its
recommendation on the 25th wage round, (LCR10,182 of
30th January, 1986), the Court stated that earnings on a
weekly average basis for busworkers and loco drivers
were not low in absolute terms. There has been no
change in the relative position of busworkers and loco
drivers in the interim to alter this situation.
(vii) In the case of salaried staff the Court, as recently as
July last, investigated a claim for increased annual
leave and, in its Recommendation No. 10,698 of 4th
September, 1986 recommended that the annual leave
entitlement of salaried staff be increased by one day
(a similar increase had been extended to other grades
under an earlier Labour Court Recommendation). This was
accepted by the trade unions and has been implemented.
The Company submits, therefore, that there is no merit
in the claim. Furthermore, the Company would not be in
a position to meet the extra cost involved amounting to
almost #1 million per annum and in addition there is no
general improvement in annual leave in the 26th round.
(viii) The Group's claim for a reduction in the working week is
based entirely on ICTU stated policy. It is accepted,
however, by ICTU that virtually no progress has been
made in cutting the weekly working hours for manual
workers below 40. The cost of conceding the reduction
claimed is estimated at over #7 million per annum which
in itself would preclude concession. In addition, the
working hours of CIE staff covered by the claim, i.e. 40
hours per week, are in line with the working week in
industry generally. There has not been any general
reduction in working hours either in direct negotiation
or by the Labour Court in this pay round. There are,
therefore, no grounds for concession of the claim in
this case.
(ix) The Unions have stated that an increase in the annual
leave entitlement and the introduction of a shorter
working week would create employment but this argument
is wholly invalid for CIE. Concession of the two claims
would lead to increased costs of over #8.2 million per
year, as indicated earlier. These higher costs could
not be met from the State subvention and the only way in
which the Company could attempt to meet them would be by
an increase in fares and charges or by cuts in
expenditure elsewhere or a combination of both.
(x) The present arrangement in the road passenger section is
that a meal allowance of #3 per day is paid to a driver
or conductor if booked off away from his home depot
during one or more of the ordinary meal times. A meal
allowance is not paid to city based crews as they are
not booked off away from their home depot nor does the
allowance apply to provincial bus staff unless they are
booked off away from their depot during meal times.
Concession of this claim would cost #2.69 million in the
road passenger section. However, any concession on the
claim would undoubtedly lead to repercussive claims for
similar payments for other staff on the same basis, i.e.
even though like city based bus crews they are not
booked-off away from their home depot during their meal
break. The total estimated cost of a meal allowance for
all the staff concerned would be #7.44 million. The
principle of this claim is a complete departure from the
principle on which payment of meal allowances in CIE is
based and which corresponds to the practice in industry
generally. There is, therefore, no valid basis for the
claim and it is in effect another demand for a pay
increase.
(xi) The remaining claim by the NBU is for payment to
busworkers of time-plus-one-half for normal work
performed on Saturdays up to 13.00 hours and for double-
time thereafter. The estimated cost of conceding this
claim would be #4.43 million per annum. The payments
for Saturday duty for road passenger staff which apply
at present where a shift allowance is not payable, are
T+.25 from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. and T+.50 from 6 p.m. to
midnight. In 1973, the Court investigated a claim for
shift payment for busworkers and in LCR3082 recommended
that the premium to replace the existing payments should
be T+1/8 with effect from the 1st April, 1973 and T+1/6
from 1st April, 1974. It will be noted that the shift
allowance recommended by the Court in substitution for
the previous Saturday payments was in consideration of
the social and other disadvantages involved in the
busworker's employment and was a special provision
introduced by the Court to compensate for these
disadvantages.
(xii) The Union is now seeking, in addition to the shift
payment recommended by the Court, the restoration and
extension of the Saturday special payments which
previously applied, or effectively, that the payments
which were superseded by the shift payments recommended
by the Court, should be re-introduced, and extended to
the Saturday morning and should be paid in addition to
the shift payments. Clearly, there is no merit in this
claim.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
recommends as follows in relation to the various aspects of the
26th Round claim:
Pay - Lead in payment of #30.00,
2.50% with a minimum of #4 per week from 1st March to 30th
September, 1987, and a further 2% with a minimum of #3.50
from 1/10/87 to 30th April, 1988 (16 month agreement).
Annual Leave - An increase of one day in annual leave commencing
in 1988 leave year.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claims for
reduction in working hours, payment of meal allowance and Saturday
rate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th June, 1987 ---------------
DH/PG Deputy Chairman