Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89501 Case Number: LCR12554 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SHOPWORKERS' TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim on behalf of locomotive fuellers at Connolly and Inchicore locomotive maintenance depots for payment for the handling and testing of electric tail lamps.
Recommendation:
Having studied the submissions and listened to the arguments
put forward by the parties, the Court is of the view that the
handling of electric tail lamps is work appropriate to fuellers
and was specifically accepted as such by the fuellers themselves
and their Trade Unions in 1987 in respect of Inchicore, Limerick
and Cork on the conclusion of a grading agreement. It was not
established to the satisfaction of the Court that there was a
case for excluding Fuellers in Connolly from similar work.The
additional work in testing electric tail lamps is so minimal that
it cannot be regarded as an unreasonable burden for the fuellers
or justifying additional payment.The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Group's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89501 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12554
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SHOPWORKERS' TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of locomotive fuellers at Connolly and
Inchicore locomotive maintenance depots for payment for the
handling and testing of electric tail lamps.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute has its origins in the Company's decision to
introduce electric tail lamps and guard driver communications to
comply with the Recommendations of the Railway Inspecting
Officer,following the enquiry into the Cherryville accident of
August,1983. In April, 1987 the Rail Operative Trade Union
Group submitted a claim to the Company in respect of Train Guards
for the additional responsibility involved as a result of the
Company's decision to implement the Railway Inspecting Officer's
Recommendation. The claim covered:
ELECTRIC TAIL LAMPS
GUARD DRIVER COMMUNICATIONS
GEISMAR - T.C.D. TRACK CIRCUIT DEVICE MARK 111 COACHES
Protracted negotiations plus three Labour Court recommendations
followed before the issue was finally resolved and the tail lamps
were introduced on the 30th January, 1989 (LCRs 11620, 11766 and
12222 refer).
3. The workers in this case are located at both Inchicore and
Connolly Station and are classed as engineering operatives,
group 1 with a basic pay rate of #142.44 x 10 to #169.55.
Management claims that the job of fitting and testing the new
tail lamps is work proper to the claimants. This has been
rejected and the Group is seeking the equivalent of one hour at
overtime rates for each of the workers and their relief on each
turn of duty. The claim has been rejected by Management. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 27th February,1989. A conciliation conference on
the 2nd March failed to resolve the dispute and on the 17th July
it was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd August,
1989.
Note: The claimants are handling the tail lights, under protest,
pending the outcome of the Court's investigation.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants are fuellers and are responsible for
fuelling locomotives, keeping records of fuel consumption and
entering the relevant data on log cards. Tail lamps are an
integral part of rail operative duties and the Unions cannot
accept that it is work proper to fuellers. It has never been
agreed that the fuellers would undertake the testing, removal
and placing of tail lamps as part of their duties.
2. If the claimants have to undertake the added
responsibility of exchanging and testing electric trail lamps
on locomotives, they must get some extra payment for these
duties. The payment claimed is one hour at overtime rates for
fuellers on each shift per day.
3. The Group rejects the argument made by Management that the
fuellers at Inchicore were up-graded from engineering
operative group two to group one, on the basis that they would
look after the electric tail lamps.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Group has argued that work in connection with tail
lamps was previously performed by depot persons and is not
appropriate to engineering operatives. It is true that the
old type oil tail lamps were kept at stations and handled by
depot persons. It is necessary to hold the electric tail
lamps at the larger locomotive depots and have them serviced.
Locomotives leaving the depots must have the lamps in place
and accordingly the engineering operatives are required to
place the lamps on the locomotive brackets and to carry out a
simple test which takes approximately 5-10 seconds to check
that the batteries have adequate life.
2. There is no justification for the claimants declining to
handle and test the tail lamps and there is no question of
them not having ample time within their existing rosters to do
so.
3. When engineering operatives at Inchicore, Cork and
Limerick, who are performing fuelling, were upgraded from
Group 2 to Group 1 in 1987/88, they accepted that they would
handle the tail lamps (details supplied to the Court).
4. The introduction of the tail lamps is an additional safety
measure arising from the Railway Inspecting Officer's
Recommendation following the Cherryville Junction accident.
There has been no monetary gain to the Company through their
introduction and in fact significant additional cost is
involved. To comply with the safety recommendation these
lamps must be affixed to locomotives and must be tested. The
duties associated with the lamps can readily be accommodated
within the engineering operatives' normal working day and the
trade unions have not contended otherwise since their
introduction.
5. The type of work involved is not outside the scope of work
appropriate to the engineering operative grade and there are
no valid grounds for them declining to perform this work. The
Company should not have to make extra payments when additional
safety measures are introduced. Improvements in safety are an
on going process and the Company does not consider that there
are grounds for a payment to engineering operatives arising
from compliance with a safety recommendation.
6. To make an additional payment to the engineering operatives
at Connolly and Inchicore would undoubtedly lead to similar
claims from other grades of staff (including engineering
operatives at other locations) who are at present handling and
testing the electric tail lamps.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having studied the submissions and listened to the arguments
put forward by the parties, the Court is of the view that the
handling of electric tail lamps is work appropriate to fuellers
and was specifically accepted as such by the fuellers themselves
and their Trade Unions in 1987 in respect of Inchicore, Limerick
and Cork on the conclusion of a grading agreement. It was not
established to the satisfaction of the Court that there was a
case for excluding Fuellers in Connolly from similar work.The
additional work in testing electric tail lamps is so minimal that
it cannot be regarded as an unreasonable burden for the fuellers
or justifying additional payment.The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Group's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
14th September, 1989. Chairman
D.H./J.C.