Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88498 Case Number: LCR12003 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - CIE SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP |
(a) Claim for application of acting foreman's rate to shift mechanics. (b) Compensation to shift mechanics for loss of earnings as a result of the introduction of 24 hour supervision.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made to it in respect
of the two claims and recommends as follows:-
ACTING FOREMAN'S RATE
It is the Court's view that, in the absence of any
comment on the Industrial Relations Officer's letter of
8th April, 1987, the workers were entitled to assume
that the Company was not unfavourable towards their
claim. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the
workers concerned be paid an amount equal to that
claimed in respect of duties done in the grade for the
period 1st April, to 31st December, 1987. The Court, in
light of the proposed supervisory changes referred to in
the Company's letter of 15th December, 1987 does not
recommend that the increase claimed be paid after 31st
December, 1987.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS
The Court recommends that compensation for losses
deriving from the appointment of foremen be paid to the
workers concerned. The amounts of such compensation to
be based on the chargehands rate, and computed in the
manner customary in the Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88498 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12003
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
AND
CIE SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Claim for application of acting foreman's rate to shift
mechanics.
(b) Compensation to shift mechanics for loss of earnings as
a result of the introduction of 24 hour supervision.
BACKGROUND:
2. Appointed foremen provide supervision during busy periods at
Conyngham Road, Summerhill, Clontarf and (prior to November, 1987)
Ringsend garages. The back shift runs from 4.00 p.m. to
12 midnight. The period from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. is considered not
to be a busy one, normally, and supervision is provided during
that period by a shift mechanic who is paid the rate of
chargehand. The Trade Union Group is claiming application of
acting foreman's rate. This claim was the subject of a Labour
Court conciliation conference held on 16th March, 1987. The
Industrial Relations Officer of the Court wrote to the Trade Union
Group by letter dated 8th April, 1987, as follows:
" I refer to a conciliation conference which took place
on 16/3/1987 at which a claim for payment of acting
foreman rate for back shift chargehands was discussed.
I confirm that the Company undertook to reconsider the
claim on the understanding that the claim if conceded
will be on the basis that the mechanics concerned will
be working foremen required to work as at present (on
chargehand duties) and on the clear understanding that
no claim for change of status or grade will be
submitted in future. These conditions were acceptable
to the Unions. "
The claim was not subsequently conceded and on 15th December, 1987
the Company wrote to the Trade Union Group stating:
" I refer to Labour Court Conciliation Conference on
16th March, 1987 concerning the claim by shift
chargehands for acting foreman rate.
As you are aware, the Company delayed responding to
the proposal of the Conciliation Officer forwarded on
8th April because of imminent changes in the area of
shift supervision.
The position of shift chargehands has since been
eliminated in Ringsend Garage where two additional
full-time assistant foremen have been appointed to the
shift. It is intended to make further appointments
during 1988 which will have the effect of eliminating
the position of shift chargehand entirely in the
remaining three garages.
In these circumstances, where the position of shift
chargehand will disappear, the Company does not intend
to make any change in the status of shift chargehands
in the interim. "
The Trade Union Group continued to seek concession of claim (a) as
well as compensation for loss of earnings arising from the
introduction of 24 hour supervision at Ringsend garage (claim
(b)). No agreement being reached, the matters were referred, on
8th March, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference held on 10th June, 1988 produced no
agreement and the Group's claims were referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 4th August, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The spirit of the conciliation conference of 16th March,
1987 and the subsequent letter dated 8th April, 1987 from the
conciliation officer gave the Unions to understand that their
claim was being viewed favourably by the Company. If
management had a position different to that expressed in the
letter of 8th April, 1987, this should have been made clear at
that time. The Unions are now seeking implementation of the
terms agreed i.e. retrospective application of acting
foreman's rate.
2. In relation to claim (b), a precedent exists in Donnybrook
garage for payment of compensation as a result of the
introduction of 24 hour supervision.
3. The Unions supplied the Court with details of the amounts
of money involved in the claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The duties of a shift mechanic chargehand and an appointed
foreman are not comparable. A chargehand, unlike a foreman,
covers periods which are not normally busy and is responsible
for fewer staff. Because of the intermittent and temporary
nature of acting duty and the more limited effectiveness of a
chargehand when compared with an appointment foreman, the
Company considers that concession of the claim for foreman's
rate is not justified. The Company did not give any
undertaking at the conciliation conference in March, 1987, to
concede the claim. It merely undertook to reconsider it and
the claim was subsequently rejected.
2. The Company introduced 24 hour supervision at Ringsend for
reasons of improving efficiency (details supplied to the
Court) rather than cost saving. This will create promotional
opportunities for staff and opportunities to act in a higher
grade during leave/illness etc. A number of the mechanics
have had an increase in earnings since the change while only
four have suffered losses. In the present difficult financial
situation the Company cannot afford to incur additional costs
as a result of the changes made for reasons of efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made to it in respect
of the two claims and recommends as follows:-
ACTING FOREMAN'S RATE
It is the Court's view that, in the absence of any
comment on the Industrial Relations Officer's letter of
8th April, 1987, the workers were entitled to assume
that the Company was not unfavourable towards their
claim. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the
workers concerned be paid an amount equal to that
claimed in respect of duties done in the grade for the
period 1st April, to 31st December, 1987. The Court, in
light of the proposed supervisory changes referred to in
the Company's letter of 15th December, 1987 does not
recommend that the increase claimed be paid after 31st
December, 1987.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS
The Court recommends that compensation for losses
deriving from the appointment of foremen be paid to the
workers concerned. The amounts of such compensation to
be based on the chargehands rate, and computed in the
manner customary in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___22nd___August,___1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman