Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89797 Case Number: LCR12700 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of eleven clerical workers employed in the catering services for compensation for loss of meal concessions.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions and the points
raised by the parties does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89797 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12700
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of eleven clerical workers
employed in the catering services for compensation for loss of
meal concessions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The recruitment procedures, rates of pay and conditions of
employment of workers in the Catering Services were always
separate and distinct from those applying in CIE. When CIE was
restructured into a holding company with three operating
subsidiaries, under the Transport (Re-organisation of C.I.E.) Act,
1986 the workers concerned became part of Irish Rail which assumed
responsibility for all catering functions. From 1984 on the Union
had been seeking integration of the workers into the C.I.E.
mainstream clerical rates of pay and conditions of employment. In
1986 discussions took place between the Company and the Union,
however at this time it would not have been possible to concede
the Union's claim due to a legislative provision governing entry
into the CIE clerical grades. In 1987 agreement was reached
whereby the catering services clerical workers were transferred on
to CIE clerical pay scales with effect from 11th May, 1987. It
was also agreed that voluntary severance terms would be applied to
two workers surplus to requirements who had opted for redundancy
and that a 1.4% productivity increase due to be paid to CIE
clerical workers would also be applied to these workers.
3. In October, 1987 the Union wrote to the Company requesting
full integration of the workers concerned. On 19th January, 1988
the Company wrote to the Union stating that it was prepared to
agree to the integration of the catering services clerical staff
into the mainstream clerical grading structure and setting out the
consequential changes in their conditions of employment. One of
these was the withdrawal of meal concessions which for these
workers ranged from 50p per week to #5.00 per week (depending on
entry date). Following this a dispute arose over the question of
the meal concessions. The Company's position was that it was the
Union which had sought the integration of the catering services
clerical workers into the mainstream structure and the benefits
attached. The Union's position was that this was the first time
that the Company had raised meal concessions as an issue and that
it should have been mentioned at previous discussions. In March,
1989 the Union wrote to the Company requesting that it offer the
workers the option of either integrating into the CIE clerical
mainstream or remaining as they were. This was unacceptable to
the Company. On 1st August, 1989 the Union wrote to the Company
accepting the proposals outlined in its letter of 19th January,
1988 but seeking compensation for the loss of the meal concession
and suggesting that the matter be referred to a Rights
Commissioner. On 11th August, 1989 the Company wrote to the Union
confirming that the implementation date for integration would be
31st August, 1989 and that it would agree reluctantly to attend a
conciliation conference if the Union referred the matter.
4. On 14th August, 1989 the Union referred the issue to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th October, 1989 at which no agreement was
reached. On 20th October, 1989 the Union wrote to the Company
stating that it was seeking #3,000 compensation for each worker.
On 31st October, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 12th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In all exchanges with the Company the question of meal
concessions or the proposed withdrawal of them was never
mentioned by the Company and the first time it was raised was
in the Company's letter of 19th January, 1988. The Union at
that stage was not aware of the full implications of this
issue but having established the facts informed the Company
that it should have raised this matter at discussions held
early in 1987 when the basic foundations for harmonisation
were established. Management would have been fully aware at
that time that if the issue had been raised it would have
caused considerable problems and difficulties in reaching
agreement. The staff presumed that this facility would
remain.
2. The loss to the workers of the meal concessions is
considerable (details supplied to the Court). Arising from
the harmonisation there were losses and gains in relation to
conditions, e.g. the staff's working week was reduced from
thirty seven to thirty six hours but there was a minimal loss
in annual leave. The overriding reason for opting for
harmonisation was that the workers would be eligible to apply
for promotional vacancies within the Company's clerical
mainstream. However, while this is desirable it is
speculative and cannot be quantified in monetary terms as meal
concessions can be. The workers should each receive #3,000
for the loss of meal concessions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union's claim for compensation is unwarranted. It was
the Union who applied for integration and the workers have
benefitted considerably by: increases in rates of pay; a
productivity payments increase of 1.4% on basic rates; a
reduction in the working week and an increase in hourly
overtime rates; payment of the second phase increase of the
27th wage round two months early; enhanced promotional
prospects, and greater security of employment. Having sought
and received proposals from the Company which conceded full
integration the Union then sought further concessions in
relation to meals which would put these workers in a better
position than the other clerical workers. There was nothing
hidden about the issue of the meals and the Union could have
rejected the Company's proposals of 19th January, 1988, if it
considered it was less advantageous to accept.
2. The workers continued to enjoy the meals facility for over
two years after the harmonisation of rates of pay until full
assimilation on 31st August, 1989. The Union has argued that
the cost to the workers of the loss of meal concessions is in
the region of #20 to #25 per week. However, Bus Atha Cliath
provides a four course lunch which is available to all CIE
staff at its Club in Earl Place at a subsidised cost of #2.00
per day and a similar facility is provided by this Company in
Inchicore at a daily cost of #1.75. The total cost to the
Company of concession of this claim would be #33,000 and the
Company would not have conceded the Union's claim for
integration on the basis that it would be required to pay
compensation. The changes in the workers' conditions of
employment were sought by the workers and their Union and the
claim for compensation should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions and the points
raised by the parties does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__10th__January,___1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman