Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90596 Case Number: LCR13115 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUPS |
Dispute concerning the rationalisation of Shelton Abbey.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has given very careful consideration to all the
points made by the parties concerned on this case. The Court
notes that despite the efforts of all the parties to resolve the
dispute over a period of two years, no agreement has been reached.
The Court recognises the Company's need to rationalise its
operation at Shelton Abbey and also recognises the problems which
the Company proposals present to the Unions.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the
workers concerned accept the Company's proposals.
The Court considers that acceptance and implementation of this
recommendation should not be prejudical to the outcome of any
similar cases in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90596 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13115
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUPS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rationalisation of Shelton Abbey.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shelton Abbey is a specialised freight depot, located between
Arklow and Rathdrum, which deals with Amonia and Fertiliser
traffic for I.F.I. There are three Irish Rail staff employed at
Shelton Abbey, i.e. 2 depotpersons, who primarily perform shunting
duties, and one engineering operative who mainly carries out train
examining.
3. Due to a downturn in business at Shelton Abbey the Company
proposed to reduce the manning levels as it considers there is
insufficient work for three men. The Company proposed to
introduce revised rosters, amalgamate the duties of the
depotpersons and engineering operative and transfer one
depotperson to a vacant signalman position in Wicklow. This would
involve the re-grading of the remaining depotperson to engineering
operative class (1). Under the Company's proposals the regraded
depotperson and the engineering operative would receive enhanced
earnings (details supplied to the Court) and the depotperson
redeployed to signalman would receive removal expenses in
accordance with existing agreements and receive compensation for
loss of earnings if such a loss should arise.
4. The Group rejected the proposals on the grounds that they were
unacceptable to the workers concerned, no agreements were in place
for such an amalgamation of duties and if such an amalgamation
should take place it would lead to difficulties in other areas.
As local negotiations failed to resolve the dispute the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th
August, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 12th October,
1990.
As no agreement was possible the parties agreed to a referral to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 26th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Implementation of the Company's proposals is necessary in
order to achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness in an area
where traffic requirements have altered. The Company must
reduce costs in order to compete and survive.
2. There is precedent for similar amalgamation of duties and
grades involved at Connolly and Fairview loco shed. Both
these locations are classified as "confined locations" and it
is proposed that Shelton Abbey be similarly designated. The
Company is not seeking similar designation for any other area.
3. There are significant financial and other benefits for the
two staff remaining at Shelton Abbey and the depotperson
upgraded to the signalperson's vacancy at Wicklow will receive
compensatory payments. The Company requests the Court to
recommend acceptance of its proposals which would give more
efficient and cost effective working.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There is no agreement on the integration of the functions
of the rail operative and depotperson grades or vice versa.
The Company has acknowledged same in earlier correspondence
with the Group (details supplied to the Court).
2. The decision to accept such an arrangement would have to
be put before the respective Trade Unions i.e. Rail Operative
Group and Shopworkers Group. Such an agreement would be
almost impossible to procure in the view of the different
wages and conditions in either grade. Also the repercussive
effects in other areas.
3. To the men involved in the case the Company proposals were
unacceptable.
4. The Companys current proposals whereby the duties of train
examiner will be taken over by Craftspersons (fitters) further
complicates the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has given very careful consideration to all the
points made by the parties concerned on this case. The Court
notes that despite the efforts of all the parties to resolve the
dispute over a period of two years, no agreement has been reached.
The Court recognises the Company's need to rationalise its
operation at Shelton Abbey and also recognises the problems which
the Company proposals present to the Unions.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the
workers concerned accept the Company's proposals.
The Court considers that acceptance and implementation of this
recommendation should not be prejudical to the outcome of any
similar cases in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
11th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.