LCR12341

Subject:
Rationalisation in the signal and electrical section.

Recommendation:
5. While the Court understands a union's desire to retain the
maximum number of posts possible, nevertheless, it is incumbent on
the Company for its part to explore all possible avenues,
including Voluntary Severance, in order to reduce costs and to
ensure the viability of the Company. In this case the Company has
identified four positions which can, in their view, be dispensed
with, with the work involved being carried out through alternative
arrangements.

Having regard to the need to safeguard the future of the Company
and also the commitments made by the Group of Unions to co-operate
with the Company in obtaining the necessary reduction in staff
numbers, the Court recommends that the Union should accept the
Company's position in relation to the four posts in question.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD89117 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12341

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: IRISH RAIL

and

ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION

SUBJECT:
1. Rationalisation in the signal and electrical section.

BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1988 following a reduction in its budget the
Company put proposals to the group of unions for a voluntary
severance package in order to reduce staff numbers. This Union's
position was that it would agree to four voluntary severances, on
the grounds that these jobs were redundant. However, it requested
the filling at four existing vacancies and objected to the
application of the voluntary severance to four other positions.
In March, 1988 discussions took place on a reduction in weekend
manning levels and in June, 1988 agreement was reached on a
reduction in shift coverage with compensation for loss of
earnings. The Union's position is that with the four jobs lost
through agreed redundancy and the agreement reached on a reduction
in weekend shift coverage, all necessary savings had been made.
In November, 1988 agreement was reached between the Company and
the Trade Union Groups of which this union is a member on the
implementation of the 27th wage round. The Company has now
offered voluntary severance to two workers who had applied for it.
This is unacceptable to the Union whose position is that the
workers should not be released unless the positions vacated are
filled. The Company's position is that the terms of the 27th wage
round agreement provided for continued co-operation in reducing
staff numbers through redeployment, natural wastage and voluntary
severance. No agreement was reached and the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 28th November,
1988. As no agreement was reached at a conciliation conference
held on 10th February, 1989, the dispute was referred on 15th
February, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 10th March,
1989.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has been instructed by the Government to
reduce expenditure up to and including 1989 by 3.7% per
annum. As a result, since its establishment in February, 1987
the Company has progressively reduced staff numbers covering
all grades by means of natural wastage and voluntary
severance. The only way in which the Company could pay the
first year's pay increase under the 27th wage round, which
will cost #3.2m in 1989, was through reductions in staff
numbers, greater flexibility, etc. The Trade Union Groups, of
which this Union is a member formally accepted with the
payment of the 27th wage round that co-operation in achieving
reductions of staff numbers through voluntary severance would
continue.

2. The electricians involved are prepared to leave the
Company on voluntary severance terms and have been offered
this facility. It is the Company's understanding that the
remaining workers are agreeable to the Company's proposals
which would enable the release of the workers involved. A
reduction in the number of electricians is feasible and it is
the Company's prerogative to determine the required level of
staffing.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has been charged with not co-operating with the
Company in its quest to achieve cost savings and make the
Company more viable. The Union refutes these allegations.
The Union has been most co-operative and reasonable. Ten of
the twelve jobs that the Company sought to eliminate in
January, 1988, have been eliminated. Workers on the Dublin
Suburban Network have suffered losses in weekend shift duties
and workers in the D.A.R.T. Maintenance Section are about to
lose most of their rostered night shift. The Union's members
have been and are prepared to suffer loss of earnings in order
to maintain jobs.

2. The Union is not prepared to tolerate any unnecessary job
losses. The Union believes that the jobs in contention are
not redundant. In the recent past the Company, because of
insufficient manpower due to redundancies, has had to engage
outside labour to carry out necessary work.

3. If job losses continue it will only be a matter of time
before safety is affected. As job losses continue the danger
element will increase. Already the quality of service is
being affected.


4. The Company during the period between referring the matter
to conciliation and the actual conciliation conference made
two jobs redundant. One of these jobs was to be discussed at
conciliation and the other job was one of the four jobs that
the Company wanted to shed in January, 1988 and had
subsequently been settled as part of the resolution reached in
June, 1988. The Union regards this as a gross affront to
normal industrial relations procedures.

RECOMMENDATION:
5. While the Court understands a union's desire to retain the
maximum number of posts possible, nevertheless, it is incumbent on
the Company for its part to explore all possible avenues,
including Voluntary Severance, in order to reduce costs and to
ensure the viability of the Company. In this case the Company has
identified four positions which can, in their view, be dispensed
with, with the work involved being carried out through alternative
arrangements.

Having regard to the need to safeguard the future of the Company
and also the commitments made by the Group of Unions to co-operate
with the Company in obtaining the necessary reduction in staff
numbers, the Court recommends that the Union should accept the
Company's position in relation to the four posts in question.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
10th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.