Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8712 Case Number: LCR11038 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CIE - and - CIE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim for an integration payment for approximately 194 workshop staff displaced by the closure of the Broadstone Works.
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.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
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 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 valeting 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