Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88383 Case Number: LCR11949 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - GENERAL MUNICIPAL BOILERMAKERS & ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Claim for the implementation of an agreement concerning promotion.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the general run down of work in the area
concerned and the presence of a number of supervisors of the same
grade, the Court does not recommend that the Company proceed with
the appointment of a further supervisor in these circumstances.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88383 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11949
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
GENERAL MUNICIPAL BOILERMAKERS & ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the implementation of an agreement concerning
promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The plate fabrication shop in Irish Rail is a large workshop
which was involved in the manufacture of railway wagons. The
demand for wagons gradually fell and it was decided to amalgamate
the supervisory structure of the plate fabrication shop and a
related workshop the locomotion smithy. Up until March, 1987, the
supervisory staff of the plate fabrication shop and the locomotion
smithy was two senior foremen, three control chargehands and four
engineering clerks. In March, 1987 following discussions with the
unions concerned, it was agreed to reduce the number of
supervisory staff to one senior foreman, two assistant foremen and
four engineering clerks. The arrangements were confirmed to the
union by the company in a letter dated 27th March, 1987. In the
letter it was stated that vacancies for two assistant foremen,
class 1 would be advertised and selection made by interview.
Interviews were held but no appointment was made. Pending the
advertising, selection and appointment, a temporary acting
supervisor was appointed in the plate fabrication shop. When no
appointment had resulted from the interviews by October, 1987, the
union sought the confirmation of the temporary supervisor. On two
further occasions the union contacted the company and sought
implementation of the March, 1987 agreement. Since March, 1987,
however, there has been a further decline in demand for the
workshop's product. The anticipated building programme did not
emerge and the company is obliged to work within a reduced budget.
In the light of these constraints, the Company has decided to
close the workshop. Because of this imminent closure, the Company
has decided that there is now no requirement for an additional
supervisor. The company also points out that there are already a
sufficient number of supervisors for the company's requirements.
The Union are claiming that the March, 1987 agreement should be
implemented. Local negotiations failed to resolve the issue and
on 19th April, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 24th May, 1988. No agreement was reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on 23rd June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. For over 60 years the position of supervisor in the plate
fabrication boiler shop has been an outlet for promotion for
the boiler-makers. It is totally unacceptable that the
company should now unilaterally abolish a post which has
always been filled by a boiler-maker.
2. The worker in the position of assistant temporary foreman
has now been in that position for over 14 months. The workers
are still there for him to supervise. The union contends that
he should be confirmed in his position without further delay.
3. As far as the union is concerned, a clear-cut agreement
was established between the parties in March, 1987. From this
agreement the Company gained a reduction of two posts and the
redeployment of a supervisor. A union member has been kept in
a temporary assistant foreman, class 1 position for well over
a year. The union request the Court to recommend
implementation of the joint agreement reached between Irish
Rail and the boilermakers union on 27th March, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is imperative that the workshop in which the proposed
promotion was to have been made, be shut down. Through no
fault of the company, there has been a steady decline in the
work available to the workshop. Good management alone would
necessitate the closure of the workshop. The company's
budgetary constraints makes the closure even more necessary.
2. It is planned to reduce staff numbers by 200 in the
current year, one third of which will be in the supervisory
technical, clerical, and executive area. 137 staff have left
since July, 1987 and have not been replaced. On the
completion of the new carriage building programme in 1989, a
further 100 staff will become surplus to requirements. In
these circumstances it would be totally illogical to create
new supervisory positions. Even if there was a need for an
additional supervisor there are three available already and
there will be four by the end of the year. These are
appointed supervisors and would have to be accommodated in
existing vacancies ahead of workshop staff in an acting
supervisory position.
3. The company acted in good faith. At the time when the
interviews were held it was hoped that a sufficient volume of
work would be forthcoming from various sources to justify the
promotions and keep the workshop open. This work has simply
not materialised. In the light of the company's severe
financial restrictions, it is not possible to maintain the
plate fabrication shop and its supervisory structure. The
workshop is to close in the near future.
4. The Company tried to avoid disappointment to the temporary
assistant foreman by informing him that due to the
availability of surplus supervisors there was a problem about
the appointment of a regular supervisor for the plate
fabrication shop and that he was not necessarily the person to
fill the position. The company wished to rotate the position
of acting supervisor in the plate fabrication shop but was
frustrated by the Union refusal to co-operate with this course
of action.
5. Changes in the company are ongoing in the light of altered
requirements. Changes in location and supervision have
already been implemented in other areas within the works. For
example, the rail trim shop has been amalgamated with road
workshops and the rail sawmill amalgamated with road
workshops. Negotiations on further organisational changes are
in progress. In the light of all of the above, the Company
asks the Court not to recommend the appointment of an
additional supervisor when a surplus of supervisors exists
within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the general run down of work in the area
concerned and the presence of a number of supervisors of the same
grade, the Court does not recommend that the Company proceed with
the appointment of a further supervisor in these circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
14th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.