Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90196 Case Number: LCR12993 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES |
Dispute concerning staffing at Limerick Cement Factory.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties, oral and written finds as follows:-
That the Company proposals for the rationalisation of its
staffing at the cement factory siding be accepted. That the
new arrangements be the subject of review after a period of
six (6) months.
That the Company and the Union at the end of this period
discuss the operation of the siding and any other issues as
may arise as a consequence of the implementation of the new
arrangements.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90196 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning staffing at Limerick Cement Factory.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has a siding at Limerick Cement Factory which is
situated approximately three miles from Limerick railway station.
The rail freight traffic handled at the factory is as follows:
Shale (Ex Kilmastulla, Limerick), Gypsum (Ex Kingscourt, Drogheda)
Bulk Cement (Produced at Factory), palletised bagged cement
(produced at Factory). The rail siding connects Limerick cement
factory with Limerick freight depot. Movements over the rail
siding are controlled by Limerick check signal cabin. There are
five level crossing gates two of which are manned by full-time
gatekeepers; the remainder are unmanned and are operated by train
crews. The present staffing level at the siding is thirteen
operatives. The Company claims that the staffing level is
unnecessarily large and should be reduced. The Company's proposal
is for a reduction to six operatives. The Unions rejected the
proposal. The issue could not be resolved locally and was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
8th March, 1989. At a conciliation conference held on the 23rd
May, 1989 it was agreed to hold a joint Company/Union examination
of working practices at the factory siding. Subsequently the
Unions requested a separate report by their own industrial
engineer. The Company's report was furnished to the Unions in
July, 1989. A second conciliation conference held on the 11th
January, 1990 failed to resolve the dispute which was referred to
the Labour Court on the 20th April, 1990. A Court hearing was
held in Limerick on the 12th June, 1990. At the hearing the Court
requested the Company to supply additional information relating to
the actual work content of duties outlined in its report on staff
reductions. This information was received on the 18th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. The Company's proposal originated in a move to rationalise
rail staff in the bagged cement and bulk cement plants at
Limerick Cement Factory where there are six depot persons - 4
in the bagged cement area and 2 engaged in opening and closing
bulk cement wagon caps. Initially the Company sought a
reduction from 4 to 2 workers in the bagged cement plant and
the 2 on bulk cement to book on and off in Limerick and travel
to and from the cement factory by train or by road if
necessary.
2. The reason for having 4 workers in the bagged cement
plant, 2 on each shift, was to monitor the bagged cement being
loaded properly on to pallets and in turn to assist the other
depot persons in opening and closing doors of wagons, back and
front, which are operated by chains and a complicated system
of wheels and securing devices. These wagons are in use for
many years and are not always in the best of condition. There
are 80 door movements per 20 wagons which is a normal train
load.
3. The loading of bulk cement has increased dramatically
since March, 1990 and will continue to operate at this level
in the future. This is due to the fact that Plattin Cement
works is engaged in exporting, and the Limerick Cement factory
is servicing those places normally supplied by Plattin i.e.
Cabra, and Tullamore. There has also been an increased demand
from Waterford.
4. Having failed to gain Union Agreement to eliminate the six
depot persons the Company then stated that it was justified in
doing so under the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. Management proposed that the depot persons work
would now be done by the 6 shunters who operate to and from
the Cement Factory. Shunters are graded workers holding the
equivalent grade to that of guard, signalmen and senior depot
person. The proposal to add ungraded work to the workload of
graded staff is completely unacceptable.
5. Since the Company's proposals were first mooted work
patterns at the cement factory have changed dramatically.
There are now four shale trains per day instead of three.
Gypsum trains now run three days per week instead of one train
per week formerly. The Cork bulk train is loaded in the
morning, travelling to Cork and back on the same day.
6. The number of cement trains emanating from the factory can
vary between five and seven trains per day. The shunters must
co-operate to the maximum degree to ensure that trains are
worked to and from the cement factory which is a single track
in an efficient manner for the fourteen to sixteen train
movements per day.
7. The retention of the present complement of thirteen
workers at the siding is essential having regard to the safety
and health in the workplace of the employees concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's report (details supplied to the Court)
clearly shows that there is considerable overmanning at the
factory siding. For example, laden and empty shale freight
trains work directly between Kimastulla and the cement factory
siding. On arrival at Limerick check signal cabin with a
laden shale train, the train guard hands over the train to a
shunter and the shunter brings the train to and from the
cement factory siding. The train guard remains idle at the
signal cabin awaiting the return of the empty train from the
factory. When the shunter arrives back with the empty train
he hands over to the train guard. The shunter then remains
idle at the signal cabin awaiting the next laden train to
Kimastulla. Under the Company's proposals the train guards
would work between Kimastulla and the cement factory siding
and carry out all duties which are now performed by the
shunters. This would result in a saving of one position.
2. Another example of under-utilisation of staff is the
situation where two shunters are rostered to take empty trains
for cement from Limerick check cabin to the factory siding
from 15.00 hours to 23.00 hours each day. On arrival the
train is shunted through the weigh-in and placed at the silo
for filling. Two depot persons, who are also rostered from
15.00 to 23.00 hours at the factory, then take over the
loading of the train at the silo, open/close the top covers
and fill each wagon. The two shunters stand idle while this
operation is in progress. The operations of loading take up
to two hours to complete for a 400 ton train. It is proposed
that a depot person should operate the train from Limerick to
the siding and carry out all shunting work through the silo
and loading. There is also uneconomic working in that two
senior depot persons and two depot persons over the shifts are
engaged at the packing plant to open and close wagon doors
prior to and after loading takes place. The workload for
these four operations equates to less than one-man hour per
day over two shifts.
3. Details of the Company's proposals are as follows:-
Location Staff Hours of Duty
Shale Siding 1 Depotperson 0700 - 1500
Packing Plant 1 " 0700 - 1500
(Bagged Cement) 1 " 1000 - 1900
Bulk Plant 2 " 1500 - 2400
Gypsum Traffic 1 " 0730 - 1630
Total 6 Operatives
The worker on the shale siding will book on and off at the
factory. All others will book on and off at Limerick. The
above listed locations are the main points of work, but staff
will move to other points as required to give the necessary
flexibility.
4. The Company cannot continue with the uneconomic situation
which exists at Limerick cement factory siding. The Company
is in a survival situation and to tolerate a waste of
resources of this nature would undermine its existence and
jeopardise jobs. The competitive nature of the transport
market required the Company to reduce its rates to Irish
Cement by 12.50% over the past three years in order to retain
the business to its services. The Company has done everything
possible to rectify the overmanning problem through the
negotiating procedures but has failed to secure the
co-operation necessary to achieve this. There will be no
compulsory redundancies arising from the Company's proposals.
The Company has resolved many instances of worker surpluses
through redeployment and there are established procedures
agreed with the unions for resolving such surpluses.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties, oral and written finds as follows:-
That the Company proposals for the rationalisation of its
staffing at the cement factory siding be accepted. That the
new arrangements be the subject of review after a period of
six (6) months.
That the Company and the Union at the end of this period
discuss the operation of the siding and any other issues as
may arise as a consequence of the implementation of the new
arrangements.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
27th August, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.