Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89735 Case Number: LCR12783 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rationalisation of freight and coaching operations at Waterford.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
considers that the Company's response to the Union's objections to
the proposed rationalisation as set out in page 4 of its
submission to the Court is not unreasonable.
However, the Court is of the view that the amount of compensation
to be divided between the affected employees contained in these
proposals is inadequate and should be increased to a sum of
#12,500.
The Court recommends therefore that the Company's proposals as
amended by the above figure be accepted by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89735 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12783
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rationalisation of freight and coaching
operations at Waterford.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are two separate operating train depots in Waterford
i.e. the freight depot and the coaching depot. Both depots are
manned by sets of staff who operate separately and book on and off
separately. The two depots are situated within the general
station complex and are slightly over one quarter of a mile apart.
Due to a reduction in the volume of activity in the freight depot
the existing operational arrangements are no longer necessary. In
the beginning of 1988 the Company put forward rationalisation
proposals involving the amalgamation of both depots into one with
a degree of interchangeability and flexibility. Staff would be
required to book on and off duty at the coaching depot. It was
also proposed that operative staff would be interchangeable
between the freight and coaching operations when required. The
Union rejected the Company's initial proposals. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred on 17th
January, 1989 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences were held on 13th April, 1989, 13th July,
1989 and 22nd September, 1989. During the course of the
negotiations the Company's original proposals were amended and by
letter of 4th May, 1989 the Company set out details of new rosters
that would apply in the event of amalgamation (copy of letter
supplied to the Court). The Company also offered #6,200 as
compensation for division amongst the affected employees.
Following these discussions a ballot of the Union membership
rejected the Company's proposals and the matter was referred on
20th October, 1989 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which
took place in Waterford on 31st January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned view the Company's proposals for
rationalisation as a major disruption of their work. The
proposed changes will slow down work and present operational
problems. The Company does not appreciate the depth of
feeling amongst the workers concerned in relation to the
disruption of their long established working arrangements.
2. There is common dissatisfaction with the monetary
provisions in the Company's proposals. In terms of the
benefit which would accrue to the Company through the proposed
rationalisation the offer of #6,200 is unsatisfactory. Even
allowing for the financial difficulties of the Company it
should be realised that an investment is always required in
order to achieve a return.
3. The Union's concern about the impact of the
rationalisation on the respective operative grades can be
summarised as follows:-
(a) Coaching Depotpersons
The Company proposals require the depotpersons to work
freight trains if required within their turn of duty.
This is unacceptable to the coaching staff whose terms
of employment relate to passenger duties only. They
will suffer a loss of earnings due to the sharing of
Sunday duty with freight depotpersons.
(b) Freight Depotpersons
In contrast to the coaching depotpersons, the freight
depotpersons require a full rotation of freight and
coaching duties in order to have equity in the overall
distribution of work. They will suffer loss in walking
time between the coaching depot and the freight depot
when booking in and off duty.
(c) Shunters
The Company's proposals would increase walking time by a
minimum of one hour for shunters. This would seriously
delay services to the Company's main freight service
customer. The shunters are satisfied that they would
come under increased pressure which could involve taking
risks and breaking rules. The Company's proposals are
in contrast to the Company policy of reducing or
abolishing walking time.
(d) Freight Guards
The Company's proposals would also increase walking time
for freight guards. An existing agreement which gives
separate rosters to freight and coaching guards was
entered into on the understanding that the freight
guards would continue to operate from the freight yard.
3. 4. The Company's proposals depend on the goodwill and active
co-operation of the staff. Any attempt to implement these
proposals without the support of staff would be counter
productive and would seriously damage the service to
customers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operation of two separately staffed depots at
Waterford is uneconomic. The Company's proposals are an
effort to preserve viability and secure jobs for the present
staff.
2. Coaching and passenger services justify a degree of public
subsidisation due to the public service element. However,
freight services are a commercial activity which depends on
the provision of services at a competitive price. Over the
past number of years a considerable volume of freight business
has been lost and the freight sector is in a very vulnerable
position. In order to remain viable it is in the interests of
the Company and its staff that non-essential costs are
eliminated e.g. costs derived from over-manning, lack of
flexibility, etc. The Company also faces financial
difficulties due to a reduction in government subsidy and the
likely impact on the commercial travel business which will
derive from the Single European Act from 1992 onwards.
3. It was estimated that, as a result of the rationalisation,
there would be an overall loss of earnings, by the
depotpersons at the coaching depot, of approximately #82.00
per week or #4,264 per annum. This would arise from loss of
Sunday duty, which they would have to share with freight
staff. An amount of #5,000 was offered by way of
compensation, on the 19th December, 1988, to be divided as
might be agreed amongst the workers involved. The local
employee representatives suggested that, as has been done at
another depot, the compensation offer might be divided amongst
all staff who would be affected, which then numbered 31. This
compensation offer was subsequently increased to #6,200, which
would give #200 to each of the employees. At the conciliation
conference, on the 22nd September, 1989, it was explained
that, due to staff changes in the meantime, whereby a number
of staff had left the coaching and yard depots as a result of
promotion and departures from the service, the amount of
#6,200 compensation would be divisible among 28 employees.
Also, assuming that, of these, three or four would be promoted
to supervisor vacancies the number would be further reduced to
25 or 24. This would increase the individual payments to
approximately #248.00 or #258.00.
4. The Union has argued that freight depotpersons will suffer
a loss in walking time. It was agreed, by the Company, that
allowance would be made in the rosters for walking time. This
meant that, where the walking time could not be accommodated
in the basic working day, an element of overtime would be
included in the roster. This would apply to staff attached to
the freight yard.
4. 5. The Company also agreed that there would be no necessity
for the staff in the freight depot to travel to the Coaching
depot at meal breaks. There is a canteen in the goods freight
yard, which these employees can avail of, and the Company is
prepared to carry out any necessary improvements or
renovations to that canteen.
6. It was agreed that the canteen, in the coaching section,
would be re-furbished, and this has been done.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
considers that the Company's response to the Union's objections to
the proposed rationalisation as set out in page 4 of its
submission to the Court is not unreasonable.
However, the Court is of the view that the amount of compensation
to be divided between the affected employees contained in these
proposals is inadequate and should be increased to a sum of
#12,500.
The Court recommends therefore that the Company's proposals as
amended by the above figure be accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__18th__April,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman