LCR12727

Subject:
Claim for regular wages, grade status and improvements in conditions of employment for non-resident level crossing keepers.

Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
As the Court understands the Group's claim, it seeks a
recommendation which would more closely integrate non-resident
crossing keepers into the general structures of wages and
conditions of other Irish Rail employees, which essentially would
entail the application of a depotperson's rate to a 40 hour week
with overtime rates applying thereafter.

While all concerned acknowledge the serious difficulties under
which Irish Rail operates and the Group seems prepared to accept a
gradual approach towards full application of all conditions, the
Court has some difficulty in accepting that the general conditions
covering other Company employees should apply. The important, but
in most cases intermittent, nature of the non-resident crossing
keepers' job cannot in the Court's view be readily directly
comparable to that of a depotperson and, given the necessarily
wide spreadover of time which attendance is required, the strict
application of general conditions would give rise either to a
serious distortion of the earnings pattern within the Company or
the necessity to employ relief non-resident crossing keepers on a
shift basis. Even if the financial position of Irish Rail was
much improved, the Court would find the imposition of the
additional cost involved by either approach difficult to support
and as things stand at present the prospects of such additional
costs arising in the future would probably further endanger parts
of the rail system and probably hinder any prospect of
development.


However, if for these reasons the direct application of normal
wages and employment conditions to the non-resident crossing
keepers does not seem a practical objective, the Court is of the
opinion that conditions could be improved and recommends that the
parties adopt the following approach:-

(a) a basic rate appropriately related to the depotpersons'
rate,

(b) a fixed premium payment which acknowledges the long
spreadover as the unsocial element in the hours of
attendance at the place of work.

(c) as with the resident crossing keepers a differential
payment for those keepers who attend the more
frequently used crossings.

(d) accession of the non-resident crossing keepers to the
CIE Welfare Scheme.

(e) Investigation of the prospects of admission to the Pension
Scheme when adherence to its rules will not worsen the terms
of employment of any of the group concerned.

The Court has deliberately avoided being specific in details of
these recommendations as it was asked for guidelines which would
allow for better integration of the workers concerned into the
general workforce of Irish Rail.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD89796 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12727


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67

PARTIES: IRISH RAIL

AND

RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP

SUBJECT:
1. Claim for regular wages, grade status and improvements in
conditions of employment for non-resident level crossing keepers.

BACKGROUND:
2. Crossing keepers are required to attend at level crossings
throughout the rail network to open and close crossing gates.
There are two categories of crossing keepers - resident
(who occupy residential accommodation at the crossing) and
non-resident. In September, 1980, following lengthy negotiations
with the Rail Operative Group, a system of calculating rates of
pay in respect of resident keepers was agreed. Prior to this they
were on personal rates related to the type of service which they
provided. Subsequent to the conclusion of these negotiations the
Group submitted a claim on behalf of the non-resident crossing
keepers for a standard method of payment. After lengthy
discussions agreement was reached in September, 1982 which
provided that the claimants should be paid on the basis of 12
hours per day for six days per week i.e. 72 hours for what was at
that time the equivalent of the depotperson's rate of pay with a
minimum payment equivalent to 48 hours attendance. In addition,
similar to the agreement reached in respect of resident keepers,
Sunday and Public Holiday working was to be paid for by additional
payment of one-sixth of the keepers' standard weekly pay. It was
further agreed that where a crossing keeper had an individual rate
of pay in excess of that negotiated, he/she would retain the rate
of pay on a personal basis. The claimants' current weekly rates
are as follows:-

- maximum for full-time attendance
(6 days x 12 hours = 72 hours) : #142.51

- minimum for less than full-time attendance
(equivalent to 48 hours) : # 95.01


The claimants, because of the special nature of their employment,
are specifically excluded from entry to the existing CIE Wages
Grade Pension Scheme. However, they are not obliged to retire at
65 years of age. (Note: The maximum rate diverged from the
equivalent of the depotperson's rate when in April, 1985,
agreement was reached with the Group on a productivity increase of
#5.40 per week (now valued at #6.06) applicable to rail operative
grades excluding crossing keepers. A claim on behalf of crossing
keepers was subsequently made by was rejected by the Company in
October, 1985).

3. In September, 1986, the Group sought to have the claimants
appointed to the regular staff and to have them admitted to the
Company's Sickness and Welfare Scheme. The Company rejected both
claims. The Group continued to press for an improvement in that
conditions of non-resident crossing keepers after the formation of
Irish Rail. Various meetings took place between the Group and
Management at which the Company was asked to apply the conditions
and rates of pay of depotpersons to the claimants. Following the
failure of local level efforts to make any progress on the issue,
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 27th September, 1989. A conciliation conference on
the 27th October failed to resolve the dispute and it was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 18th December, 1989.


GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Group acknowledges the serious financial cost of
up-grading the non-resident crossing keepers but feels that it
is possible to transfer the workers concerned to the regular
wages staff and gradually improve their conditions over a
number of years, thereby lessening the impact of the
associated cost increases.

2. This claim is not precluded under the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery as the claim long pre-dates
the Programme (P.N.R.).

3. The Group is most anxious to regularise the position of
these workers whose conditions of employment are appropriate
to the 19th Century. Many have had extra duties imposed on
them without any increases in pay (details supplied to the
Court). For example, at Myrtle Hill in Cork, where two
depotpersons formerly covered the 24 hours turn of duty on
shift, the gate is now manned by non-resident crossing
keepers. This is just one instance of the Company making
savings at the claimants' expense.

4. Non-resident crossing keepers do valuable work and play an
important role in rail safety. They must be diligent and
conscientious in carrying out their duties. Many are required
to travel long distances to operate the crossing gates.


4. 5. The Company is not being asked to do anything immediately
and the Court should recommend some type of programme or
schedule for having these workers treated as full-time Company
employees. In addition, if the Court recommends that they be
included in the Wages Grade Pension Scheme, both sides can
pursue it from a statutory basis.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The application of the depotperson's rate and conditions
of employment to non-resident crossing keepers would cost in
excess of #1m. per annum. This very considerable cost would
have grave implications for the Company's finances (details
supplied to the Court).

2. The existing C.I.E. Wages Grade Pension Scheme is a
statutory pension scheme which, because of the special nature
of their employment, specifically excludes level crossing
keepers from entry. Entry to the scheme is only possible
between ages 20 and 50 years. If the statutory bar was
removed and eligible non-resident crossing keepers were
admitted, the additional cost to the Company would be in the
region of #17,000 per annum. At present, however, crossing
keepers are not obliged to retire at age 65 and those aged 66
years or over are eligible to receive the State contributory
old age pension.

3. Staff who on retirement are not members of the C.I.E.
Wages Grade Pension Scheme are eligible to receive certain
gratuitous payments under a Company voluntary scheme. No
contribution to this scheme is required from the employee and
benefits are service related (details supplied to the Court).

4. The opening of crossing gates (details of the different
types of level crossings supplied to the Court) is not an
onerous task and cannot be compared with the duties of a
depotperson or other rail operative grade. In addition to
performing manual station and freight depot duties,
depotpersons are required to operate mechanical equipment, to
be proficient in guards', shunting, signalling and ticket
checking duties and to perform such duties when necessary.
The non-resident crossing keeper is paid for attendance and
not for work performed.

5. With the exception of three lines the average number of
trains over a 24-hour period ranges from 10 to 16. This
indicates the average number of times gates at "CX" crossings
(where gates are closed across the railway) are opened in a
24-hour period.

6. Concession of this claim would result in a repercussive
claim being made on behalf of resident crossing keepers.
Furthermore, claims for the preservation of differentials
could well follow in respect of other grades.




5. 7. The Company simply cannot afford additional costs of this
nature and magnitude. The second phase increase under the
P.N.R. has been implemented for all the Company's employees
and will cost an additional #2.5m. in a full year. Moreover
the arrangements for payment of the wage increases under the
P.N.R. preclude the implementation of any special pay
increases.



RECOMMENDATION:

6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
As the Court understands the Group's claim, it seeks a
recommendation which would more closely integrate non-resident
crossing keepers into the general structures of wages and
conditions of other Irish Rail employees, which essentially would
entail the application of a depotperson's rate to a 40 hour week
with overtime rates applying thereafter.

While all concerned acknowledge the serious difficulties under
which Irish Rail operates and the Group seems prepared to accept a
gradual approach towards full application of all conditions, the
Court has some difficulty in accepting that the general conditions
covering other Company employees should apply. The important, but
in most cases intermittent, nature of the non-resident crossing
keepers' job cannot in the Court's view be readily directly
comparable to that of a depotperson and, given the necessarily
wide spreadover of time which attendance is required, the strict
application of general conditions would give rise either to a
serious distortion of the earnings pattern within the Company or
the necessity to employ relief non-resident crossing keepers on a
shift basis. Even if the financial position of Irish Rail was
much improved, the Court would find the imposition of the
additional cost involved by either approach difficult to support
and as things stand at present the prospects of such additional
costs arising in the future would probably further endanger parts
of the rail system and probably hinder any prospect of
development.


However, if for these reasons the direct application of normal
wages and employment conditions to the non-resident crossing
keepers does not seem a practical objective, the Court is of the
opinion that conditions could be improved and recommends that the
parties adopt the following approach:-

(a) a basic rate appropriately related to the depotpersons'
rate,

(b) a fixed premium payment which acknowledges the long
spreadover as the unsocial element in the hours of
attendance at the place of work.

(c) as with the resident crossing keepers a differential
payment for those keepers who attend the more
frequently used crossings.

(d) accession of the non-resident crossing keepers to the
CIE Welfare Scheme.

(e) Investigation of the prospects of admission to the Pension
Scheme when adherence to its rules will not worsen the terms
of employment of any of the group concerned.

The Court has deliberately avoided being specific in details of
these recommendations as it was asked for guidelines which would
allow for better integration of the workers concerned into the
general workforce of Irish Rail.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,



John O'Connell
_______________________
1st February, 1990
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.