Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87570 Case Number: LCR11386 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATE;RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION;ITGWU |
Claim by the Company to have approximately 35 train crew staff work from Waterford through to Cork.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's proposals be accepted by the
claimants, on the basis of the guarantees given by the Company and
that the position regarding the accommodation be kept under
review.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87570 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11386
CC87861 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11386
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP
Subject:
1. Claim by the Company to have approximately 35 train crew staff
work from Waterford through to Cork.
Background:
2. The Company operates a freight service carrying containers,
for one customer, from Waterford to Cork. The train runs five
times a week and since 1984 it stops at Mallow where the
train crew rests in a dormitory. A second crew comes to Mallow
from Cork and brings the train to Cork North Esk. Prior to 1984
the train crews booked off in Cork rather than Mallow. On 11th
May, 1987, the Company proposed that the train crews should revert
to the pre - 1984 system of working through to Cork. The Union
group rejected the proposal on the basis that the Cork dormitory
is not in good condition and is an unsuitable place for train
crews to rest, whilst, Mallow is particularly satisfactory. The
Company said that the Union Group's arguments were not valid
because the dormitory facilities in Cork have been improved over
the last few years. Further to this, the Company said that the
present system is uneconomic and that as a result of competition
jobs may be lost. As agreement could not be reached at local
level, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court.
3. At a conciliation conference on 21st May, 1987, the Company
indicated that it would consider the possibility of providing
alternative accommodation in Cork, such as a guest house. The
Union Group agreed to await the Company's new proposals, however,
they were subsequently rejected and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 17th July, 1987, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 5th August, 1987.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The present system necessitates the availability of two
train crews at Cork at a cost of approximately #35,000
per annum. This is entirely uneconomical in respect of
one service to one customer. The freight sector, if it
is to retain its existing business, must provide an
economical service. This aspect has been specially
examined and the implementation of the proposed system
would enable the staffing at Cork to be reduced by two
drivers and two guards, giving a saving of #35,000 per
annum.
(ii) The reasons for the introduction of the old system, in
1984, have ceased to exist. Trains now run on time,
except in exceptional circumstances, the conditions in
the Cork dormitory have been improved and the Company
has made accommodation available in a nearby guest
house. The Company has also guaranteed that the
Waterford train crews will not be required to shunt
other trains, and will be given all reasonable
facilities.
(iii) The frequency with which individual drivers and guards
are involved in this operation is relatively low. Each
guard will work it on 23 to 24 occasions per annum, and
each driver on 14 to 15 occasions.
(iv) The proposed system is fully in accordance with the
National Agreement between the Company and the Unions,
and the Company is entitled to require the train crews
concerned to operate the train in accordance with the
proposed system. There will be no loss of earnings for
the workers concerned under the proposed system.
(v) It is incumbent on the Company, due to its serious
financial situation, to contain expenditure and avoid
dis-economies, in an effort to maintain viability and
protect jobs.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The working of this train was the subject of agreement
following intensive negotiations in 1984 after an
unofficial dispute. The reworking of this agreement is
unacceptable because the Cork dormitory is situated on
a busy thoroughfare and it is much more difficult to
get adequate rest there than in the Mallow dormitory,
which is in a quieter rural setting. Whilst the Union
Group recognises that the Company has invested in
double-glazing, they believe that the Cork dormitory
can never be brought to the same state as the Mallow
dormitory in terms of quietness.
(b) The Union Group entirely rejects the cost arguments put
forward by the Company. In 1984, two separate areas of
Company Management confirmed in writing that there was
no cost attached to the working of the train between
Mallow and Cork (details provided to the Court).
Indeed it is common practice in major depots to have
drivers and guards rostered as spare to cover
eventualities such as this.
(c) The Union Group considers that its approach to this
issue has been realistic. The 1984 arrangements
provide an acceptable and efficient means of working
this train and they can see no reason for change.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's proposals be accepted by the
claimants, on the basis of the guarantees given by the Company and
that the position regarding the accommodation be kept under
review.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
2nd September, 1987
B.O'N./J.C.