Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9056 Case Number: LCR12842 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES;A DIVISION OF S.I.P.T.U. |
Claim by the Union on behalf of machine operators for a 3% payment for use of radios on track machines.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that both grades of operatives have
a liability to drive the equipment the Court recommends that the
Union's claim be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9056 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12842
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
(A DIVISION OF S.I.P.T.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of machine operators for a 3%
payment for use of radios on track machines.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns twenty seven machine operators, fourteen of
whom are graded as No. 1 and thirteen as No. 2. Their rates of
pay are #171.41 per week and #160.61 per week respectively. The
machine operators work on machines (in two's and sometimes
three's), which travel along the track and carry out maintenance
and renewal work on the permanent way. The Company proposes to
introduce radios on the track machines which will enable the
machine operator to communicate with Centralised Train Control
(C.T.C.). The Union is seeking payment of a 3% increase in pay
for both the No. 1 and No. 2 machine operators, on the basis that
a 3% increase was awarded to locomotive drivers for the
introduction of train radio in conjunction with a continuous
automatic warning system (C.A.W.S.) allied to cab signals (L.C.R.
No. 8912 of 28th May, 1984 refers). The matter has been the
subject of numerous local level discussions since 1985 and
conciliation conferences were held in 1986 and 1987, following
which further local meetings took place. In 1988 the Company
offered to apply the 3% increase in basic pay to the machine
operators No. 1 only, on the basis that they are in charge and
would be responsible for using the radio on the track machines.
This was rejected by the Union on the basis that the No. 2 machine
operators would have to have the necessary knowledge and skill to
work the radio system and should not be treated differently to the
No. 1 machine operators. On 16th November, 1988 the matter was
again referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 7th February, 1989 at which no
agreement was reached. On 12th January, 1990 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 12th February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The train radios which are to be fitted on to the on track
machines, are the exact same type of telefunken radio system
used on the diesel electric locomotives and the D.A.R.T.
electric trains, for which drivers were awarded an increase in
basic pay of 3% (L.C.R. No. 8912 refers). On track machines
play a vital role in the maintenance and renewal of the
railway system. In the rules and regulations, on track
machines are regarded as trains. The machine operators are
subject to the rules and regulations and must be proficient in
their application at all times (details supplied to the
Court).
2. In a letter sent to the Union on August, 1987 the Company
stated that it was not in a position to improve its offer of
1.50% to all operators (details supplied to the Court). The
Company had for the first time acknowledged the validity of
the Union's claim (although this offer was later withdrawn).
The No. 2 operators are both flexible and interchangeable with
the No. 1 operators. While the introduction of the radios is
a safety measure it also places additional responsibility on
all the machine operators. The No. 2 machine operators have
to have the necessary knowledge and skill to work the train
radio system and should not be treated differently to the No.
1 machine operators. A 3% increase to the basic rate of pay
should be applied to both the No. 1 and No. 2 machine
operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of radios on the track machines is in the
main a safety measure. The Company has offered to apply the
3% increase in basic pay to the 14 machine operators No. 1 on
the basis that they are in charge and will be responsible for
using the radio on the track machines. There are no valid
grounds for paying the increase to the machine operators No.
2, as they would not be in charge and not required to operate
the radio. When a machine operator No. 2 is required to
relieve a machine operator No. 1 who is absent for any reason,
the No. 2 operator is paid the higher duty of the No. 1 rate
of pay in accordance with clause 8 of the national agreement
for rail operatives. Therefore, the proposed 3% increase in
basic pay to the No. 1 machine operator would be reflected in
the higher duty payment made to a No. 2 person acting in a No.
1 position.
2. The Company's offer is fair and reasonable and there is no
merit in the Union's claim. On the basis of the Company's
offer the 3% increase will be paid to the machine operator in
charge, who will be onerated with the responsibility of using
the radio on the track machines. There are no valid grounds
for making the payment to one or two other men on the machine
who do not have this responsibility. The radios should be
operated on the basis of the Company's offer, which should be
accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the fact that both grades of operatives have
a liability to drive the equipment the Court recommends that the
Union's claim be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
5th March, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.