LCR12499

Subject:
Claim by 174 Inspectors for a 25% increase in salary to improve pay differentials over grades supervised.

Recommendation:
6. Having considered all aspects of this issue, including the
impact of O.P.O. on inspectors, the movements in the pay
differential between inspectors and drivers over a long period,
the content of LCR10750, the financial position of the Company,
the proposals for a reduction in overall supervisory costs and the
appropriateness of the offsets claimed by the Company, the Court
recommends that the Unions accept the Company offer of 16th June,
1989 subject to its amendment that:-

The 146 inspectors proposed for promotion to Grade C be
promoted to Grade D.

Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD89183 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12499


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67

PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS

AND

C.I.E. CLERICAL AND SUPERVISORY GROUP OF UNIONS
(I.T.G.W.U./N.A.T.E./T.S.S.A.)


SUBJECT:
1. Claim by 174 Inspectors for a 25% increase in salary to
improve pay differentials over grades supervised.


BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901 dated 23rd August,
1985, recommended terms for the introduction and operation of one
person operated double deck and large capacity single deck buses
in Dublin City Services. A key point of the Recommendation was
that the bonus payable to drivers of O.P.O. buses would be
increased to 33.33%. In another Labour Court Recommendation No.
10750, dated 10th October, 1986, the Court, in dealing with a
claim:-

"on behalf of operative supervisors for a 20% increase in salaries
to increase the differential over the grades supervised"
recommended that:-

"a special #500 adjustment (inclusive of the #157 under the
productivity arrangements) in salary scales of the claimant
supervisors should be conceded by the Company with effect from 1st
March, 1986".

The group of Unions being of the opinion that the issue of O.P.O.
differentials was not dealt with in the Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10750, lodged a claim in June 1987, for the
extension of the O.P.O. allowance to all Road Passenger
Inspections. The claim is on the basis that differentials over
grades supervised have eroded following the introduction of O.P.O.


This claim was the subject of discussions throughout 1988. A
Labour Court conciliation conference took place in January, 1989,
at which it was agreed to refer the claim to the Court. A Court
hearing was arranged for 10th April, 1989 but was deferred as both
sides agreed to set up a joint Working Party, with objectives to
reduce traffic supervisory costs and identify possible scope to
address the Inspectors pay claim. The Working Party issued its
report (details supplied) on 6th June, 1989. The report set out
new structures and working methods for Inspectors. As a result,
an offer to upgrade inspectors to various levels in the new
grading structure was made by the Company on 16th June 1989. This
offer was rejected by the group of unions and the Inspectors then
withdrew co-operation from the Company in its programme to update
ticketing equipment and computerise rostering. Further
conciliation conferences were held on 21st and 26th June, 1989.
No settlement was reached and both parties agreed to refer the
dispute to the Labour Court for investigation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 30th June, 1989.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The principle of enjoying a differential over grades
supervised is central and sacrosanct to the structure of
supervisory salaries. The differential for Grade A Inspectors
pre O.P.O. is 41.96%, post O.P.O. plus non-participation bonus
is 23.44%. The differential for Grade B Inspectors pre O.P.O.
is 51.55%, post O.P.O. is 13.65% and post O.P.O. plus
non-participation bonus is 31.77%. Having regard to the
erosion of differentials for Inspectors a 25% increase on
their existing basic salaries is fair and reasonable.

2. The Working Party report acknowledges the input of
Inspectors to the implementation of O.P.O. The principal
additional duties and responsibilities undertaken by
Inspectors are:-

A. On bus safes - allocation and replacement.

B. Input into trials for new ticketing machines with
master terminal in each depot.

C. New type of "onbus" tickets - feeder
weekly/monthly.

D. Excess fares now undertaken by Inspectors.

E. Unpaid/uncollected fares - Inspectors determine
responsibility.

F. Monitoring and implementing the law - Inspectors
apply the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

G. New T.V. monitors in Control Room in conjunction
with Dublin Corporation.

H. Allocating T.I. Machines and contents.



The Inspectors were also responsible for the implementation of
the Company's programmes on Absentee Control and Safety.

3. There has been a positive and gradual upward trend in the
grading of management positions in the Company since its
formation, which has co-incided with the development of O.P.O.
Over the past ten years the supervisory grade with which
Inspectors directly related were regraded twice - in 1978/79
to Supervisor Grade E and in 1984 to Executive Grade 3 - being
designated District Superintendents.

4. In 1980, following the extension of an increase of #10 per
week to C.I.E. Road Passenger grades and 6% to Reliefs
Operative Staff, the Company agreed a salary increase for
Inspectors. The increase of 13% over two phases, included a
productivity element and lump sum to cover retrospection.
There are similarities in the events of then and now, with the
exception that the O.P.O. increase of 33.33% to drivers is of
a much more significant proportion. In 1986, a claim for the
restoration of eroded supervisory differentials was recognised
by the Labour Court in its Recommendation No. 10750.

5. The gross savings to the Company based on the Working
Party's proposals are in the region of #480,000. The Group
reject the following offsetting costs as quantified by the
Company.


(A) Labour Court Recommendation No. 10750

The Company have costed the implementation of this
Recommendation at #87,000. The Recommendation was
issued prior to the passing of legislation fragmenting
C.I.E. into four subsidiaries. It was implemented on a
retrospective basis with no pre-conditions. The other
subsidiaries involved with the Recommendation have not
sought to introduce cost-retrieving conditions on behalf
of grades of Inspectors affected by it.


(B) 27th Pay Round

The Company calculated a cost of #100,000 against the
Inspectors on this issue. The spirit of the Agreement
on the 27th Round between the Company and all Unions was
that any savings which could be generated collectively
across the board, would be offset against the pay
increase, with particular emphasis on the introduction
of cashless pay which would affect all grades of staff.
The Group considers that the Company is treating
Inspectors inequitably by seeking to introduce this
element in these negotiations.




(C) Building Modifications

The Company propose to apportion a cost of #5,000 per
garage (total of #35,000) in respect of the
infrastructure modifications required to be introduced,
in respect of crew rostering. The Group consider such
charges to be capital costs, which will increase the
asset value of the buildings in the various garages, and
consequently, should not be apportioned against the
Inspectors.


6. Apart from the savings on O.P.O. to date, in respect of
which the Inspectors have played a major part, the Company
will derive further substantial savings on an ongoing basis
from the proposed revised rostering and duty arrangements
contained in the Working Party report.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is partly motivated by the 33.33% O.P.O.
allowance paid to drivers. The relativities are as follows:-


Relativities Salary per Annum

#

O.P.O. Driver - 9749 -
Grade A Inspector - 10413 - 6.8%
Grade B Inspector - 11116 - 14.0%
Grade C Inspector - 11819 - 21.0%
Grade D Inspector - 12531 - 28.0%
Grade E Inspector - 13241 - 30.0%


Of the 174 Inspectors in the Company, thirty one are Grade A
while the remainder are in Grade B. There is no recognised or
established relativity between supervisors and the grade
supervised.


2. The Labour Court in issuing Recommendation No. 10750 took
all factors into consideration, including the introduction of
O.P.O. and the extra earnings which that would involve for
drivers. Inspectors duties have not substantially changed as
a result of O.P.O. Since September 1988, the number of staff
to be supervised is reduced by approximately six hundred.




4. 3. The Company has participated in a joint Working Party.
The Working Party's proposals provide for fourteen additional
substantial promotional opportunities to Grade E. It also
identified possible reductions in the number of Inspector
duties. As a result of the Working Party proposals, the
Company made the following offer on 16th June, 1989:-


GRADE: NUMBER DUTIES

A - Newly appointed Inspectors with less
than 6 months in Inspector Grade.

A 2 Desafing Inspectors
1 Rehab Inspectors.

B 11 Newly appointed Inspectors with more
than 6 months but less than 12
months in the Inspector Grade.

C 146 Stance - AVM - Depot Area Inspectors
Relief Panel Training - A.P.U. -
Control R.P.U.

D - -

E 14 Area Supervisors.


This offer in effect means an increase of 8% on the basis of a
weighted average and is consistent with the current structure
existing within the C.I.E. Group. Adherence to the current
structure minimises the likelihood of consequential claims
within the Company and the wider C.I.E. Group.


4. The Company is not in a position to meet a 33.33% salary
increase for Inspectors and considers that there is no basis
for a claim of that magnitude. The cost of conceding the
claim would be #1.8m annually. In considering the claim
account must be taken of the Company's serious financial
position and the stringent requirements imposed by the
Government Subvention Policy and the Government Policy on pay.
The Court, as far back as 1985 in its Recommendation No. 9628
has acknowledged the Company's serious financial position. In
Recommendation No. 10181 on 25th Wage Round the Court referred
to the Company's financial position i.e. "The Court having
regard to the Company's financial position...." The I.C.T.U.
Trade Union Group in a letter dated 28th November, 1988
regarding the 27th Wage round referred to "The serious
financial situation of the Company"




The Inspectors have received the full increase under the 27th
wage round, which for all staff cost the company #1.4m. It is
the Company's view that it is implicit in the implementation
of the wage round increases that no further additional costs
should be incurred by way of claims for special pay increases
or improvements in conditions of service unless these are met
by savings. The unions agreed at a meeting of 15th June that
it would be necessary to evaluate savings to propose a pay
adjustment that would be both self-financing and have the
effect of reducing overall supervisory costs in real terms.


4. 5. Currently, staff shortages, annual leave, illness,
desafing, etc. are covered by rest day/overtime working which
in the past year amounted to a total of 10,144 days. The
proposals of the Working Party and the consequent reduction in
duties will have the effect, based on current numbers of
Inspectors, of reducing this requirement to 3,872 days. The
gross savings resulting from this reduction would amount to
#480,650.


There are offsetting costs detailed as follows:-


(A) The Working Party proposals do not provide for
desafing at five of the seven garages and
alternative provisions would cost approximately 75%
of the existing annual cost - #100,000


(B) The A.C.P. cover presently provided arises from the
consolidation of duties relating to absences that
were always the responsibility of Inspectors at the
garage. The A.C.P. Inspectors were provided to
meet a serious absence problem. The duties were
met by way of rest day working and were purely
temporary in nature. The cost amounted to #138,000


(C) In order to implement the proposals certain
building modifications are necessary to permit the
amalgamation of Depot and A.V.M. officers - #35,000


(D) First phase of 27th pay round - #100,000


(E) Labour Court Recommendation 10750 - #87,000





RECOMMENDATION:

6. Having considered all aspects of this issue, including the
impact of O.P.O. on inspectors, the movements in the pay
differential between inspectors and drivers over a long period,
the content of LCR10750, the financial position of the Company,
the proposals for a reduction in overall supervisory costs and the
appropriateness of the offsets claimed by the Company, the Court
recommends that the Unions accept the Company offer of 16th June,
1989 subject to its amendment that:-

The 146 inspectors proposed for promotion to Grade C be
promoted to Grade D.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,





Kevin Heffernan
__3rd__August,__1989. ___________________
A.McG/U.S. Chairman