Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89852 Case Number: LCR12712 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of shift premium to 3 electricians employed in Cork.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that the union put the proposals for the
rationalisation of Electricians in the Cork Depot to a ballot of
it's members in the expectation that these would be acceptable to
the Company if accepted by the Union.
The Court does not consider that these proposals in any way
compromise the National Maintenance Agreement, as they are
specific to the employees concerned in Cork Depot and met the
specific requirements of the situation in that Depot. Further the
Court considers the continuation of the shift payment in this case
was part of the benefits accruing to the staff concerned as a
consequence of other benefits accruing to the Company.
It is the view of the Court that the shift premium should be
continued as at present but that it be limited on a personal basis
to those workers involved directly in the rationalisation.
Any new electrician appointed to the Cork Depot to be paid on the
basis of Time 1/6 in accordance with the National Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89852 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12712
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of shift premium to 3
electricians employed in Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 25th November, 1987 the Company put forward proposals
on rationalisation in response to Government constraints and
directives to reduce costs by 10% across the board. The proposals
regarding the electricians were to reduce the numbers from 6 to 3,
eliminate the 3 cycle shift and replace it with a 2 cycle shift
and total flexibility of the Loco and Station departments in Cork.
3. Numerous meetings were held following which agreement was
reached in May, 1988. The Company obtained the required number of
redundancies through volunteers. Under the agreement the workers
concerned retained their 3 shift rate of time and one-fifth.
4. In November, 1988 the Company requested a meeting with the
Union in order to review the agreement in accordance with clause
7. The Company indicated that it wished to review the payment of
the shift premium from time and one-fifth to time and one-sixth
which would bring it into line with the norm nationally. The
Company also offered to pay compensation to the workers concerned
for the reduction in the shift payment. The Union rejected the
Company's offer on the basis that the retention of the time plus
one-fifth shift premium was an integral part of the
rationalisation agreement.
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 22nd March, 1989. A conciliation conference was
held on 7th November, 1989 (a date suitable to the parties). As
no agreement was reached the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held in Cork on 8th December, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It is the Company's view that the agreement on
rationalisation provided for the payment of shift premium at
time plus one-fifth for 3 months after which the situation
would be reviewed in accordance with Clause 7.
2. The Union's claim that payment of time plus one-fifth
should continue for two shift working is contrary to the
National Agreement for engineering craft workers. The Union
should accept that the correct payment of time plus one-sixth
should be applied fortwith.
3. The Company's offer to make a compensatory payment is fair
and reasonable in a situation where no loss of earnings exists
as a result of the change in rosters. The workers concerned
are now in receipt of enhanced overtime earnings due to rest
day work on Saturdays and Sundays.
4. The continuation of the erroneous payment could have
serious financial implications as it could lead to
repercussive claims from other groups of workers within the
Company. The Company has had to introduce many
rationalisation schemes in order to remain competitive and
viable. Accordingly additional costs of this nature cannot be
afforded.
5. In a similar situation involving fitters in Cork, the
correct payment of time plus one-sixth has replaced time plus
one-fifth (details supplied to the Court). Also the Labour
Court has held previously that an erroneous method of payment
which was contrary to the National Agreement should be
corrected.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Agreement on rationalisation was reached on the basis
of time plus one-fifth applying. All the parties to the
Agreement clearly understood the proposals. If management
ever intended, having got the changes required, to review the
premium then it was something known only to themselves. The
proposals would never have been accepted if there was any
doubt in the workers' minds. A trade union official can only
work on the basis that when management put a proposal for
consideration they have authority to do so.
2. The premium is personal to the three electricians
concerned and the Union again reiterates its commitment not to
use it as a precedence or claim to have it applied to any
vacancies in this area.
3. The difference between the shift premia is approximately
#7 a week for the three electricians. This sum is marginal
when compared to the overall savings achieved by the Company
as a result of 3 redundancies and total flexibility between
departments.
7. 4. It is the Union's view that subsequent claims by other
groups of workers led management to seek a method of reneging
on its agreement with the Union and references to direction
from "Human Resources", "shopworkers Agreement" and "Review
Clause" were all spurious reasons designed to achieve this.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that the union put the proposals for the
rationalisation of Electricians in the Cork Depot to a ballot of
it's members in the expectation that these would be acceptable to
the Company if accepted by the Union.
The Court does not consider that these proposals in any way
compromise the National Maintenance Agreement, as they are
specific to the employees concerned in Cork Depot and met the
specific requirements of the situation in that Depot. Further the
Court considers the continuation of the shift payment in this case
was part of the benefits accruing to the staff concerned as a
consequence of other benefits accruing to the Company.
It is the view of the Court that the shift premium should be
continued as at present but that it be limited on a personal basis
to those workers involved directly in the rationalisation.
Any new electrician appointed to the Cork Depot to be paid on the
basis of Time 1/6 in accordance with the National Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__23rd__January,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman