Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88275 Case Number: LCR11845 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - C.I.E. SHOP WORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP |
Dispute, relating to productivity, which concerns division of savings and retrospection.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 8644 and
the sanction of the Minister to productivity proposals in 1984,
recommends as follows:-
(1) DIVISION OF SAVINGS:
In respect of savings arisings from productivity agreed
and implemented up to date of recommendation a division
of 70/30 in favour of the employees
and
In respect of savings arising from productivity agreed
and implemented as and from the date of recommendation a
division of 50/50.
(2) With regard to the claim for retrospection the Court
recommends payment of £100 to each of the operatives
directly concerned in the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88275 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11845
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
C.I.E. SHOP WORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute, relating to productivity, which concerns division of
savings and retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns approximately 650 engineering operatives
employed at the Company's workshops, stations and depots. Between
1979 and 1981 CIE engineering craftsmen negotiated a productivity
deal with the Company. In 1981 the Group claimed that engineering
operatives should receive a similar or relative increase. That
claim was investigated by the Labour Court which issued
Recommendation No. 6465 as follows:-
" The Court considers that there is merit in the Group's
claim for a fixed relationship between these workers and
the Engineering Craftsmen with whom they work so closely in
CIE. The Court therefore, recommends that the parties
agree that on the expiry of the 1980 National Agreement on
Pay Policy the percentage relationship between the
claimants and the Engineering Craftsmen be maintained
except where a general Company or National Agreement or
Productivity Agreement on behalf of any group disturbs this
relationship. "
A Joint Working Party was set-up to investigate the areas where
savings might be made and have these savings costed. A dispute
arose as to the percentage division of savings between the
parties. That dispute was investigated by the Labour Court which
issued Recommendation No. 8644 as follows:-
" The Court having considered the submission made by the
parties, takes the view that having regard to the terms of
Labour Court Recommendation No. 6465 and whilst of
necessity allowing that relativities may vary as a result
of productivity agreements would on balance support the
Group's contention in this case that the division of
savings accruing should be on a similar basis as agreed
with the Craftsmen. "
In May 1984 the Minister for Communications approved the
conclusion of the productivity agreement covering engineering
operatives but expressed strong reservations with regard to a
70/30 split.
On 16th May, 1984 the Company offered the Group an increase of
£9.08 per week in basic pay for adult engineering operatives and
£4.26 for juniors. The Group was not able to accept the offer and
proposed productivity deals be concluded on a sectional basis.
The Company rejected this proposal. On 18th November, 1985 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 11th December, 1985
and 20th January, 1986 but no agreement was reached. Following
further local negotiations another conciliation conference was
held on 5th September, 1986 but no agreement was reached. On 2nd
February, 1987 CIE was divided into three separate companies.
3. On 15th March, 1988 the matter was referred back to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 11th April, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. On 18th April, 1988 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 29th April, 1988.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Operatives savings should be divided in the same manner as
craftsmen savings were under the productivity deal in 1981.
The operatives work side by side with the craftsmen and should
have the same division of savings. This view was supported by
the Labour Court in Recommendation No. 8644 in which the Court
recommended that the division of savings accruing should be on
a similar basis as agreed with the craftsmen. The Group's
view on savings is also supported by an assessor's report
which was carried out by Messrs. E. A. Cahill & R. J. Nicholl
in 1979 following a dispute concerning the division of savings
from a productivity deal in 1976.
2. The Group agrees that usually retrospective or lead-in
payments are not given on productivity deals but in this case
a clearly identifiable number of costed items have been given
over a number of years for which no payment has been made.
Indeed one item alone that is Heuston Wash was costed in 1983
at an annual savings of £59,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. A 70/30 division of savings in favour of the workers is
substantially in excess of that agreed under productivity
agreements covering other employees within the Company i.e.
rail operative, road freight and executive/clerical staff. An
exception was engineering craft-workers where the split in
1981 was on a 70/30 basis. However, this was a reduction from
a division of 80/20 in the previous productivity agreement.
Similarly building trade employees who had got an 80/20
sharing of savings in 1976 had this division reduced to 70/30
in a subsequent productivity agreement. It is the Company's
position that a 70/30 divide should not apply in any future
productivity agreement covering any section of staff.
2. A 70/30 division of savings is not necessary in the case
of engineering operatives to honour the intention of LCR 6465
on the maintenance of relativity between engineering
operatives and engineering craftsmen. That recommendation
specifically excludes movements in pay arising out of
productivity agreements.
3. Any proposals on productivity will require to be approved
by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. The Minister when
sanctioning the previous productivity proposals in 1984
expressed his reservations about the 70/30 division and at
that time indicated that any future agreements should be on a
50/50 basis. Indeed, since then there has been a general
Government policy movement away from productivity agreements;
the situation in 1988 is very different from that which
obtained in 1984 when ministerial approval was originally
given.
4. On the question of retrospective payments, any payment
under a productivity agreement should only apply from the date
of the introduction in full of that agreement.
5. Due to its financial position and the Governments
subvention policy it is necessary that the full amount of any
savings achieved go to reduce expenditure. In this situation
the Company does not consider a 70/30 division of savings
realistic. Neither can the Company afford to make
retrospective lump-sum payments to staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 8644 and
the sanction of the Minister to productivity proposals in 1984,
recommends as follows:-
(1) DIVISION OF SAVINGS:
In respect of savings arisings from productivity agreed
and implemented up to date of recommendation a division
of 70/30 in favour of the employees
and
In respect of savings arising from productivity agreed
and implemented as and from the date of recommendation a
division of 50/50.
(2) With regard to the claim for retrospection the Court
recommends payment of £100 to each of the operatives
directly concerned in the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___11th___May,____1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman