Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9045 Case Number: LCR12785 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Dispute concerning productivity payment for rail operatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that with the payment of #5.40 on
the basic rates in April, 1985 the Productivity Agreement in
respect of Rail Operative staff was finalised, and no further
agreement was put in place since the termination of that
agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for a productivity increase in basic pay on foot of a
reduction in staff numbers since that date.
The Court however notes the extent of the reduction in staff
numbers since April, 1985 (some 500).
Given the significance of this reduction in staff the Court
recommends that the parties discuss the consequences of such
reduction and the adjustments necessary for the operation of the
service.
The Court recommends that the parties, in these discussions take
account of such issues as either party may wish to raise, and seek
to reach an agreement which will address the needs of the staff
and will secure the co-operation necessary to the effective and
efficient operation of the service.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9045 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12785
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning productivity payment for rail operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the seventies the Company commenced radical changes in the
method of operation of the railway and in work practices. This
resulted in a complete restructuring of grades with new job
descriptions. Payments under a productivity agreement for rail
operative staff based on this restructuring scheme were made at
various stages related to the implementation of the changes
involved for the different grades. The last payment under the
productivity agreement was made in April, 1985. The Unions claim
that, in the absence of negotiations on a new productivity
agreement, the productivity agreement which was negotiated in the
seventies still exists and payments on the basis of productivity
since 1985 are due to the workers concerned. The Company claims
that the productivity agreement concerned was concluded in 1985
and that any reduction in staff numbers achieved since 1985 was
necessary in the interests of viability. No agreement was reached
at local level and the matter was referred on 2nd May, 1989 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 2nd June, 1989 at which no agreement was
reached and on 11th January, 1990 the matter was referred to a
full hearing of the Labour Court which took place on 19th
February, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions claim is for payments due under a productivity
agreement which originated in the seventies and still exists.
Since the last payment under the agreement was made by the
Company in 1985 there has been a reduction in the region of
five hundred railway operatives. The Unions are now seeking a
further payment in the light of those staff cuts.
3. 2. The Unions have made it abundantly clear both by written
and verbal statement since 1985 that they are willing to enter
new productivity talks. As a new agreement has not been
negotiated the Union is satisfied that the agreement
negotiated in the seventies still exists.
3. Since 1985 there have been changes in operations and work
practices etc. The reduction in staff numbers has meant that
in certain areas there is increased productivity. Savings
have been made by the Company through the co-operation of the
workers concerned. The workers concerned should receive some
acknowledgement of their increased productivity through
payments under the existing productivity agreement.
4. The Unions do not accept that any payments due under
productivity are rendered null and void because of the
existence of any national wage agreement which may come into
existence from time to time. Wage increases have not been
implemented on the basis of staff reductions as claimed by the
Company.
5. The Unions are aware that the Company has financial
problems. However, the Company meets its other commitments
and should also meet its commitments to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The productivity agreement for rail operative staff which
was negotiated in the seventies terminated in 1985. The
required reduction in staff was achieved in 1985 and all
arrears due to the workers concerned were cleared by mid 1985.
The productivity agreement was then terminated and this was
clearly understood by both parties as demonstrated by
correspondence from the Unions.
2. The Unions have argued that because the revised job
specifications agreed under the productivity agreement
concerned impose a continuing obligation on their members,
there is therefore an on-going obligation on the Company to
continue to make productivity payments on foot of staff
reductions achieved after the termination of the agreement.
This is not a valid argument. Increases in basic pay were
afforded for any increase in responsibility under the previous
agreement and these payments continue to be made and have been
enhanced by subsequent percentage wage round increases.
Accordingly, rail operative grades are being compensated on an
on-going basis for flexibilities etc., which were conceded
under the previous agreement.
4. 3. The Company due to its financial situation is not in a
position to make special payments on foot of reductions in
staff numbers. The Company must live with a reduced
Government subvention in real terms, greater liberalisation in
the transport sector, increasing competition, reduced capital
allocation, and the additional costs each year of the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). Due to these
constraints the Company does not have the resources to make
payments for reductions in staff numbers. However, this does
not preclude discussions on major changes in existing work
practices in order to secure reduction in costs which are
necessary to the viability of the Company.
4. Since the Company was set up in 1987 it has sought to
bring staff numbers into line with actual requirements. Staff
number reductions in all grades have been attained up to now
through natural wastage, redeployment and voluntary severance.
There have been no compulsory redundancies. The staff
reductions are mainly due to restructuring, reduced
subvention, loss of business, reducing workload and the
overall extremely acute financial situation. These staff
reductions are vital to the viability of the Company and it is
not in a position to discuss productivity payments on the
basis of such reductions in staff numbers.
5. In recent years there has been a general Government policy
movement away from productivity agreements and the situation
today is very different from that which obtained on the
seventies and early eighties. The Company has met wage round
increases on the basis that the reductions in staff numbers
are required to help finance the additional cost. The Company
has entered into no commitment to make productivity payments
to rail operative staff and has continually advised the Union
of the financial restraints which prevent such payments being
made. To make such payments would have grave repercussions in
respect of similar claims on behalf of other grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that with the payment of #5.40 on
the basic rates in April, 1985 the Productivity Agreement in
respect of Rail Operative staff was finalised, and no further
agreement was put in place since the termination of that
agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for a productivity increase in basic pay on foot of a
reduction in staff numbers since that date.
The Court however notes the extent of the reduction in staff
numbers since April, 1985 (some 500).
Given the significance of this reduction in staff the Court
recommends that the parties discuss the consequences of such
reduction and the adjustments necessary for the operation of the
service.
The Court recommends that the parties, in these discussions take
account of such issues as either party may wish to raise, and seek
to reach an agreement which will address the needs of the staff
and will secure the co-operation necessary to the effective and
efficient operation of the service.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___29th___March,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman