Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88671 Case Number: LCR12074 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Claim on behalf of two workshop supervisors for an integration payment of #550.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not find grounds for recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88671 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12074
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two workshop supervisors for an integration
payment of #550.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1985 the maintenance of carriages and other rolling
stock, (which was previously carried out at two separate depots
i.e. Pearse and Connolly), was centralised in a new valeting plant
at Connolly Station. The maintenance staff who transferred from
Pearse Station, and those who continued working at the new plant,
were paid an integration payment of #550. However two supervisors
(one of whom transferred from Pearse depot and the other based at
Connolly) received no payment. The Association has claimed
payment on behalf of both supervisors. The Company rejected the
claim on the grounds that the payment had been paid to maintenance
staff for loss of seniority. As no agreement was reached in
discussions at local level the dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 14th March, 1988.
A Conciliation Conference was held on the 31st May, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 24th August,
1988. A Court hearing took place on the 6th October, 1988.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association wrote to the Company in July, 1987
requesting an integration payment of #550 on behalf of the two
supervisors, referred to the amount of #530 awarded to train
guards per LCR8911A/L and pointed out that the two workshop
supervisory staff were similarly integrated and therefore were
entitled to a similar payment. The Company maintained that
the payment was in respect of loss of seniority, but the
Association argued that other staff at Connolly Station (e.g.
engineering clerks on day work) had received payment of #550
and had not suffered in so far as their seniority arrangements
were concerned. The Company however quoted the grounds for
payment of the lump sum as follows:-
(1) acceptance of two cycle shift working,
(2) diminution of superior duty arrangements, promotion
opportunity,
and
(3) increased flexibility in the new situation.
The Association pointed out that the Company has always held
in the past, that shift allowance is paid to staff who are
required to accept shift cycle working. The diminution of
superior duty or promotional opportunities could not be
quantified and could apply equally to any grade of staff.
With regard to increased flexibility the Association indicated
that the foreman in the Pearse Maintenance Depot who
transferred to Connolly, was initially responsible only for
the staff who had transferred with him. On the retirement of
the foreman in the Connolly maintenance Depot, his staff were
transferred to the (former) Pearse Depot foreman's control, in
addition to the staff who had already transferred from Pearse
with him.
2. In the course of the Conciliation Conference the Company
quoted "loss of seniority" and "acceptance of shift working"
as the basis for the payment to the maintenance staff and
"additional clerical duties and a reduction in numbers" as the
justification for making the payment to engineering clerks.
The Association however contends that the payment had also
been made to maintenance staff who had not lost seniority and
also referred to the payment being made to operative guards
and craftsmen who have not been required to accept shift
working. The Company accepted that the maintenance staff have
not in fact suffered a diminution in promotional
opportunities. Both workshop supervisors at the location have
accepted new work practices as a consequence of the reduction
in numbers and the requirements of new work practices
introduced by the Company. There is no justifiable reason why
the Association's members should be treated any less
favourably than all other grades who were paid the integration
allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The arguments made by the Association in support of its
claim for the two supervisors are that craftworkers and
engineering operatives, as well as engineering clerks,
received an integration payment of #550.00, and #450.00
respectively. It is the Company's contention however that the
grounds on which the payments were made to these staff, do not
exist in the case of the two workshop supervisors. The basis
for the payment of the lump sum of #550.00 to traffic staff
who integrated with other staff at Connolly Station under the
suburban electrification scheme (LCR8911) was mainly to
compensate for loss of seniority rights for progression to
higher duties and to promotional positions. Accordingly,
certain staff were excluded from this payment. The trade
unions subsequently brought claims to the Labour Court seeking
the #550 payment for shunters and signalmen. However the
Court found that these staff were not adversely affected by
the transfer and that there were not valid grounds for the
making of the payment in their case (LCR10058 of 7th November,
1985). Similarly, the seniority of the two workshop
supervisors concerned in this claim was not affected in any
way by the change. It should be noted that no integration
payment was made to supervisory staff at Connolly Station when
other staff received the integration payment arising from the
transfer of staff under the suburban electrification scheme.
The payment of #550 to craftworkers and engineering operatives
was made for specific reasons i.e. loss of seniority,
diminution of higher duty and promotional opportunity, moving
from day work to two cycle shift work increased flexibility in
relation to performing work in the locomotive maintenance
depot at Connolly. These changes in conditions do not apply
in the case of the two workshop supervisors. Two additional
supervisors have been appointed on shiftwork in the new
valeting plant.
4. 2. With regard to the three engineering clerks, the Company
made an offer, in December, 1985, of a lump sum payment of
#275 each but this was rejected by the trade unions and the
claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner who found as
follows:-
" the degree of integration in this case of the
engineering clerical staff was less than that of the
others but #275 is hardly enough; I recommend #450
each. "
The duties of the engineering clerks were primarily affected
to the extent that they undertook duties in relation to the
locomotive maintenance depot at Connolly in addition to those
applicable to the new carriage valeting plant. This did not
happen in the case of the two workshop supervisors (one of
whom transferred from one location in Connolly to another and
has been promoted). The Company submits that there are no
valid grounds for the payment of a lump sum of #550 to the two
supervisors. Their seniority was not affected by the change,
neither was their higher duty or promotional prospects in any
way diminished. They were not obliged to transfer to shift
work i.e. they remained on day work, and their sphere of
duties was not widened to include the locomotive maintenance
depots.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not find grounds for recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
24th October, 1988.
T.O'D./J.C. Deputy Chairman