Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88672 Case Number: LCR12369 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim for the restoration of parity between suburban Centralised Train Control (C.T.C.) signalmen and C.T.C. mainline signalmen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that in Labour Court Recommendation No. 9437
it recommended parity of basic rate of pay as between Mainline and
Suburban centralised train controlmen. Having considered the
submissions from the parties and notwithstanding the above
mentioned recommendation, the Court is satisfied that the
additional payment now being made to Mainline C.T.C. Signalmen
(introduced on a phased basis) is specifically related to
additional work and responsibility which has devolved on them, as
a result of the extension of the Mainline Centralised System which
was subsequent to the issue of Labour Court Recommendation No.
9437. Suburban C.T.C. Signalmen are not involved in these duties
except to the extent that there is an agreement with regard to
interchangeability (as required) between the two groups of
operatives. The Court notes that where interchangeability is
applied the additional sum will be paid in respect of the time
Suburban C.T.C. Signalmen perform the duties of Mainline men.
In all the circumstances the Court does not find grounds for
recommending concession of the Group of Unions claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88672 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12369
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the restoration of parity between suburban
Centralised Train Control (C.T.C.) signalmen and C.T.C. mainline
signalmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. Labour Court Recommendation No. 9437 of 1985 gave parity of
pay to mainline and suburban C.T.C. signalmen. Their basic rate
of pay is #190.94 per week. In 1987 and 1988 the area covered by
the mainline C.T.C. was extended. Following negotiations, the
mainline signalmen received an increase of #6 per week which was
said to be based on extra responsibility. In December, 1987 the
Union Group claimed that the increase should also apply to the
suburban signalmen, based on the pay parity and interchangeability
which existed between the two groups as a result of L.C.R. No.
9437. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that the #6
increase was based on the increased responsibilities of the
mainline C.T.C. signalmen, and that these did not apply to the
suburban group. Agreement could not be reached on the issue at
local level, and on 26th April, 1988 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 25th May, 1988. No agreement was
reached, and on 30th August, 1988 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The matter was
subsequently withdrawn, and then re-entered. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on the 23rd February, 1989.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1982 the then railways manager confirmed to the two
officials representing the Union side that "the rate of pay in
the C.T.C. box will be the same as that for the mainline
C.T.C. signalmen." During the negotiations in relation to
suburban electrification, a system of "agreed minutes" was
introduced in relation to meetings held. It can be seen from
these that the principle of parity of pay and
interchangeability was firmly established between the parties
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The Labour Court in recommendation No. 9437 confirmed the
parity of rates of pay when it recommended that the Company
amend its offer to provide for an increase of #10 per week on
the existing C.T.C. signalmens rate. The offer to which the
Court referred was that contained in the Company's letter of
10th March, 1983, which leaves no doubt that the Company saw
parity of rates and interchangeability as the key to the
Company's understanding of the situation. A subsequent letter
from the Company, on the 7th February, 1988 confirms this
position (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Unions' believe that the foregoing evidence has
established three important facts:
(1) There is a common rate of pay between suburban and
mainline C.T.C. signalmen.
(2) As a result of the pay parity, both sides have recognised
the principle of interchangeability between the mainline
and suburban C.T.C. signalmen.
(3) At no stage did the Unions forego the right to have the
mainline award of #6 applied to the suburban signalmen.
If the Company is contending that the #6 should not apply to
the suburban C.T.C. then they must accept the consequence that
there is no interchangeability between the staff of the
suburban C.T.C. and the staff of the mainline C.T.C. Suburban
C.T.C. staff have made it clear that if their claim fails,
they will no longer be obliged to interchange. The Unions'
believe that the justice of their claim is clear.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In support of its claim the Group have argued that the
same rate of pay was being paid to all C.T.C. signalmen and
that in order to maintain this position the special allowance
should now be afforded to the suburban signalmen. The
position is that the 16 C.T.C. signalmen are on the same basic
rate of pay. The mainline signalmen are being paid a special
allowance in respect of additional work and responsibility
which has devolved on them as the result of the extension of
C.T.C. This extension of duties occurred after the rate of
pay of C.T.C. signalmen was settled on the basis of L.C.R. No.
9437 of January, 1985. Where allowances are paid within the
Company, they relate to special duties and are paid for the
performance of such duties. The allowance being paid to the
mainline C.T.C. signalmen was agreed with the Group on the
basis of specific duties being performed by the mainline
signalmen. A portion of this allowance (#4.00) is being paid
at present and the remaining #2.00 will not be paid until the
full range of duties is actually being carried out. The
suburban signalmen are not involved in the extension of C.T.C.
and therefore do not qualify for the allowance. They were not
covered by the original claim submitted by the Group and there
are no valid grounds now for the payment of the allowance to
them. To extend an allowance to staff who do not perform the
duties to which the allowance relates would inevitably lead to
repercussive claims from other grades in respect of other
allowances.
2. The Group have also argued that the allowance should be
paid to the suburban signalmen because there is
"interchangeability" between them and the mainline signalmen.
Following the issue of L.C.R. No. 9437, of 11th January, 1985
the Company in a letter to the Trade Unions stated "that it
has been agreed that the principle of interchangeability would
apply between the mainline C.T.C. and suburban C.T.C.
signalmen." At a meeting on the 13th February, 1985 the Group
stated that the mainline signalmen would not agree to
interchangeability and the defacto situation is that there has
not been interchangeability between the mainline and suburban
C.T.C. signalmen. The Company's final offer of the 8th April,
1987 on the payment of the allowance was made on the basis of
the existing situation. In a situation where "interchangeability"
applied, then the special allowance would only be paid in
respect of the time a suburban signalman was performing the
duties of a mainline signalman. The C.T.C. relief signalman
performs mainline duties as required from time to time and is
only paid the special allowance for the period he is engaged
on mainline duties.
3. The first phase increase of the 27th wage round was agreed
with the trade unions and implemented from 1st October, 1988.
The unions agreed among other things, to accept that no cost
increasing claims would be served or implemented during the 12
months covered by the pay increases. In all the circumstances
the Court is asked to reject the Unions' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that in Labour Court Recommendation No. 9437
it recommended parity of basic rate of pay as between Mainline and
Suburban centralised train controlmen. Having considered the
submissions from the parties and notwithstanding the above
mentioned recommendation, the Court is satisfied that the
additional payment now being made to Mainline C.T.C. Signalmen
(introduced on a phased basis) is specifically related to
additional work and responsibility which has devolved on them, as
a result of the extension of the Mainline Centralised System which
was subsequent to the issue of Labour Court Recommendation No.
9437. Suburban C.T.C. Signalmen are not involved in these duties
except to the extent that there is an agreement with regard to
interchangeability (as required) between the two groups of
operatives. The Court notes that where interchangeability is
applied the additional sum will be paid in respect of the time
Suburban C.T.C. Signalmen perform the duties of Mainline men.
In all the circumstances the Court does not find grounds for
recommending concession of the Group of Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________
27th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.