Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87833 Case Number: LCR11620 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - RAIL OPERATIVES TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim by the Union Group on behalf of 194 train guards for the payment of a 12.50% responsibility allowance.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds that there are not adequate grounds which would
justify the payment of a responsibility allowance. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87833 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11620
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
RAIL OPERATIVES TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union Group on behalf of 194 train guards for the
payment of a 12.50% responsibility allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim arises out of changes in job practices resulting
from the introduction of the Mark III/Inter-City coaches and the
introduction of certain recommendations of the Railways Inspectors
following the Cherryville train crash. The changes involve the
remote control closing of doors, the fitting and testing of
portable electric lights to the rear of the train and the carrying
of radio transmitters for communication with the train driver. On
20th February, 1987, the Union Group lodged a claim for a
responsibility allowance to be paid to train guards. Following a
number of meetings at local level the Union Group quantified the
claim on 24th April, 1987, as one for a 12.50% allowance on basic
pay. The Union Group argued that the introduction of the changes
had the effect of increasing the responsibility of the guards.
3. The Company did not accept that there is any increase in
responsibility but merely a change in equipment, which makes the
job easier to perform. The Company indicated that the guards have
always been responsible for closing the doors and ensuring that
lights are on the train. The Company argued that the present
method of testing the lights and closing the doors is by pushing a
button, which is easier than the old method. The radio
transmitters allow the guard and driver to communicate, without
stopping the train. As agreement could not be reached at local
level, the matter was referred on 9th July, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no settlement could
be reached at a conciliation conference held on 22nd September,
1987, the dispute was referred on 3rd November, 1987, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 4th December, 1987.
UNION GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union Group contends that the train guards now have
more responsibility than they did previously. The guard has
responsibility for the train and its equipment eg. heating,
lighting, generating and door equipment, which he did not
have up to this.
2. When the C.A.W.S. system was introduced, the extra
responsibilities for guards was recognised and compensation
was given. Locomotive drivers received compensation for the
operation of hand held radio transmitters. Guards should
also receive compensation.
3. The Company has invested millions of pounds in the new
Mark III coaches. The guard is responsible for safety on the
train. The Company is attempting to introduce new equipment
without paying compensation because the equipment is safety
enhancing. If this is allowed then the Company will be free
to introduce any changes it wants once it is done in the
interests of safety.
4. In support of its claim, the Union Group quoted the
following paragraphs and recommendations from the 'Report of
the investigation into the accident on the CIE Railway near
Cherryville Junction, Co. Kildare' -
Recommendation No. 3 (Page 4),
Paragraph 57 (Page 65),
Recommendation No. 5 (Page 65),
Paragraph 58 (Page 65),
Recommendation No. 6 (Page 66),
Paragraph 59 (Page 66),
Recommendation No. 7 (Page 66).
These dealt with details of the accident, its cause and
recommendations on how to avoid another such accident.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The introduction of the new devices are additional safety
measures, arising from the recommendation of the Railway
Inspecting Officer. The Company should not be obliged to
make additional payments in order to secure the introduction
of additional safety measures.
2. The new coaches were introduced in 1984, in order to
improve standards of service and thereby retain and if
possible increase passenger numbers. The Company faces
intense competition and the alternative to improving
standards is lost business and additional job losses.
3. The use of hand held radio transmitters is already
embodied in a Production Agreement. This agreement
specifically provides that all rail operatives, including
guards, will "operate and co-operate in the use of two-way
radio and other communication equipment". The guards will
have no extra responsibility with the tail lamps and will
have virtually no involvement with the track circuit
operating devices. Duties in relation to the new coaches
fall within the ambit of the guards normal duties and
responsibilities.
4. The direct cost of the claim is estimated at #320,000 per
annum and concession of the claim could lead to repercussive
claims from other staff. The Company is in a financial
situation where considerable expenditure savings must be
achieved, and cannot afford the additional cost of claims of
this nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds that there are not adequate grounds which would
justify the payment of a responsibility allowance. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
11th January, 1988
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman