Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87882 Case Number: LCR11647 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of two inspectors employed in the Company's catering services for an increase in salary.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that there has been an increase in the
duties and responsibilities of the claimants arising from the
re-structuring of the services.
6. The Court finds that there is merit in their claim for a
salary increase. The Court recommends that the Company offer and
the claimants accept a 10% increase on basic salary as from the
date of the conciliation conference i.e. 13th October, 1987. The
Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
retrospection, in the light of the Company's financial situation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87882 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11647
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of two inspectors employed in the
Company's catering services for an increase in salary.
BACKGROUND:
2. The current rate of pay of the two inspectors is #10,673 and
in addition they receive a share of gratuities amounting to
approximately #470 per annum. The Union first raised the claim on
15th January, 1985, following a proposed re-organisation and
redeployment of certain duties arising from the retirement of a
catering supervisor. The Union argued that the catering
inspector's jobs are unique in the Company and that their rate of
pay is totally out of line with their responsibilities. The Union
also pointed out that it believed the re-organisation to be a
productivity exercise, generating substantial savings to the
Company. The Union feels that a more appropriate rate of pay
would be the rail operative supervisor - group E rate, ranging
from #12,542 to #14,000 per annum. The Company does not agree
that the present rate of pay is inadequate but is commensurate
with the skills of the employees in question. Following
correspondence and a number of meetings at local level, the matter
was referred on 23rd September, 1987, to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. As no agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 13th October, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on 10th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of the suppression of two clerical grade
positions in the catering services, agreement was reached
between the Company and Union, in May, 1987, for the
harmonisation of all the residual clerical grades into the
appropriate scales in the clerical salary structure,
resulting in salary improvements for the clerical staff.
This agreement was negotiated under the umbrella of
productivity relative to the savings accruing from the
suppression of the clerical positions. There is equally
justifiable grounds for the Company to give serious
consideration to a similar formula on behalf of the two
catering inspectors on the basis of the savings accruing from
the retirement of the catering supervisor.
2. One of the workers concerned is responsible for the
rostering of all staff on dining cars and buffets,
(approximately 140 staff in total). The other worker is
responsible for the dining cars, their stores, hygiene, etc.
They are totally interchangeable with each other and relieve
each other as necessary. They have a constant and ongoing
obligation to improve the viability of the catering services
operation and their committment in this regard is of the
highest calibre.
3. The Company has argued against the adjustment of the
inspectors' salary scale in a manner similar to the clerical
staffs' restructuring, because there is no supervisory grade
with which a valid comparison can be made. The Union does
not accept this. Prior to the split-up of C.I.E. the
operative grade supervisory structure embraced the Company's
entire spectrum of operations. Since the split-up, that
criterion has continued to apply in the Company, and as both
workers concerned are strictly within the Company structure
it is reasonable that they should be rationalised
accordingly.
4. The inspectors' respective duties effectively gives them
'front line' responsibility for the efficiency and viability
of the catering services operations. Comparison with the
respective salary levels of clerical and executive staff,
against the respective levels of responsibility demonstrates
that the inspectors are underpaid. The Union does not accept
that the duties of the clerical positions are more onerous
than those of the inspectors.
5. This claim was first lodged in January, 1985. The two
inspectors have received ongoing promises and assurances that
their case would be resolved for nearly three years, all to
no avail.
6. The Union is fully prepared to agree to an independant
professional assessment which would take into account the
management input of the duties and responsibilities of the
positions in dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rates of pay of the catering inspectors are not and
have never been related to the rates of pay of rail operative
supervisors. The inspectors, in addition to their salaries,
receive gratuities amounting to #470 per annum and free
meals. These emoluments are not enjoyed by rail operative
supervisors. The Company does not accept that there is
anything in the work taken over by the inspectors which would
provide valid grounds for upgrading; the Group's claim is
for an increase of #1,869.08 per annum which when cognisance
is taken of overtime, Sunday duty and other premium payments,
would give an increase in the region of #2,300 per annum.
The inspectors' earnings for year ended April, 1987 were
#15,642.00 and #14,578.00 respectively.
2. In September, 1976, the Labour Court investigated a
similar claim. At that time the inspectors sought the same
rate of pay as rail operative supervisors group C, which
would represent an increase of #508 per annum at to-day's
rates. The Court, in Recommendation No. 4090, did not
recommend in favour of this claim. At that time the
inspectors' rate of pay was less than the group B operative
supervisors' rate, while to-day it is #104 in excess of the
group B rate. Apart from this, the inspectors have received
a number of special increases since 1976, (details provided
to the Court).
3. The Union has argued that additional responsibilities
have devolved on the inspectors since the retirement of the
catering supervisor. The supervisor in question had
responsibility for overall supervision of station buffets
throughout the country. The number of station buffets has
been reduced from 19 to 6 with a reduction in staff numbers
from 146 to 71 and this was a significant factor in allowing
the supervisor to retire. Following the retirement of the
supervisor the two inspectors took over a greater supervisory
role with regard to the three Dublin buffets, but not the
provincial city buffets. It is also significant that since
the mid-70's the number of on-train catering staff has
declined from 133 to 99.
4. The existing rates of pay of the catering inspectors are
fair and their take-home pay is very reasonable. There are
no valid grounds for payment of a special increase now.
Overall, there has been no increase in their duties and
responsibilities such as would warrant a pay increase.
5. Of a total of 175 rail operative supervisors in the
Company, only 7 are graded group E. These supervisors have
onerous responsibilities, (details provided to the Court).
6. The rates of pay quoted are pre 26th wage round rates.
The Company's offer on the 26th Round will cost #3.24m in a
full year; the Company is simply not in a position to pay
special increases over and above the wage round settlement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that there has been an increase in the
duties and responsibilities of the claimants arising from the
re-structuring of the services.
6. The Court finds that there is merit in their claim for a
salary increase. The Court recommends that the Company offer and
the claimants accept a 10% increase on basic salary as from the
date of the conciliation conference i.e. 13th October, 1987. The
Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
retrospection, in the light of the Company's financial situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
14th January, 1988
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman