Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88168 Case Number: LCR11813 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that two stores issuers be regraded to the grade of storekeeper.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the two claimants be re-graded to
storekeeper with effect from 1st December, 1987.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88168 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11813
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that two stores issuers be regraded to the
grade of storekeeper.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1987, this matter was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation following which the Court issued Recommendation No.
11124 which is as follows -
"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 reation 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".
The parties subsequently agreed that the case should be the
subject of an investigation by the Irish Productivity Centre. In
its findings the I.P.C. acknowledged that the responsibility and
accountability of stores issuers in Dublin Bus is higher than in
the provinces but went on to say that over the total score this
difference was not significant and that therefore the posts were
considered to be of similar value. Accordingly, the Union on
behalf of two storemen employed at Broadstone and Dundalk garages,
served a claim on the Company for the upgrading of the two men to
the position of store keeper, from their current position of
"Engineering Operative Group 1". The Company did not accept the
findings of the I.P.C. on the matter, stating that the higher
grade applying in Dublin Bus was based on responsibility and
accountability. Agreement could not be reached at local level and
on 10th December, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 26th January, 1988. Agreement was not
reached, and on 24th February, 1988, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 23rd March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At local meetings, prior to the last Labour Court hearing
of this matter, the Company stated that the claimants were
not doing work comparable to the store keepers' work in
Dublin City services. The Company stated that there were 10
points of difference between the duties of the claimants and
those of the storemen in Dublin. It maintained this argument
throughout the Labour Court investigation of the matter. The
Court recommended that a job evaluation be undertaken to
investigate the matter. The Union went along with this
recommendation in good faith.
2. The Irish Productivity Centre having examined the case on
terms agreed by the Company, has issued its recommendation
which clearly states that the claimants are entitled to be
regraded. Nonetheless, the Company is still refusing to
upgrade the workers.
3. A large number of regradings have already taken place at
clerical and supervisory level within Bus Eireann without the
need for third party investigations. The Company, having
agreed a means of resolving the problem, now wish to decline
the solution when it does not suit them. The Union finds
its attitude disturbing and unreasonable. The Union
respectfully requests the Court to uphold the recommendation
of the I.P.C. and confirm the two workers in the regrading to
which the Union believes they are entitled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the Irish Productivity Centre, following
examination of the two jobs of the engineering operatives on
stores issuing duties in Broadstone and Dundalk garages, and
the two storekeepers' jobs in Clontarf and Ringsend found
that the jobs were similar, it is the Company's view that the
responsibility and accountability in the Bus Atha Cliath
garages is far greater than that required in either
Broadstone or Dundalk garages. This level of responsibility
and accountability has been the traditional method for the
allocation of grades within Bus Eireann and was the method in
C.I.E. prior to the restructuring of the Company.
2. The Union has proposed that the duties carried out by
Storekeepers in Bus Atha Cliath, which are not at present
part of the jobs in Broadstone and Dundalk garages, should be
carried out by the claimants. This proposal is impractical
because the two engineering operatives say that they are
unable to carry out their present duties without overtime.
In addition this work is at present part of the duties which
are allocated to other staff in these garages and the
re-allocation would, therefore, be of no benefit to Bus
Eireann and would in fact lead to additional costs because of
increased overtime working at a higher rate of pay.
3. The claimants have sufficient supervisory and
administrative back-up in the garages in Broadstone and
Dundalk, and the level of responsibility and accountability
of engineering operatives on stores issuing duties are such
that they do not warrant the grading of Supervisor regardless
of the rate of pay. A major part of the additional cost of
these regradings would be for admission to the salaried
superannuation fund.
4. The Company is faced with a serious financial situation
because in the first year of operation expenditure has far
exceeded revenue (including Government subvention). The
Company is also faced with a reduction of £1.5 million by the
Department of Education in School Transport Services
allocation for 1988.
5. The Company is striving to adhere to the Government
directive to break even and is attempting to develop a cost
effective, efficient organisation, which it must achieve if
it is to survive in a competitive market and protect the jobs
of all employees.
6. The Rights Commissioner who had previously examined the
jobs in the Dublin City Services garages and the provincial
garages such as Broadstone and Dundalk, identified a 12%
difference in responsibility and accountability between the
jobs at that time and it is the Company's view that this gap
has not only been maintained but has increased since then.
7. The Company recognises that the work of engineering
operatives on stores issuing duties in Broadstone and Dundalk
garages may be of higher value than the work normally
performed by engineering operatives and for this reason has
made an offer of the payment of the equivalent of a
chargehand allowance to the claimants.
8. The Company, therefore, requests the Court to recommend
that the Union accept the Company's offer of the payment of
the equivalent of a chargehand allowance to the two
engineering operatives on stores issuing duties in Broadstone
and Dundalk garages.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the two claimants be re-graded to
storekeeper with effect from 1st December, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd April, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
P.F./P.W. Deputy Chairman