Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90475 Case Number: LCR13017 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Dispute concerning productivity payments for rail operatives.
Recommendation:
1990
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90475 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13017
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 18
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning productivity payments for rail operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a dispute concerning a claim for productivity
payments to rail operative staff (on the basis of an approximate
reduction in staff numbers of 450/500) following the expiry of a
productivity agreement in 1985, the Labour Court issued LCR12785
on the 29th March, 1990. This recommendation reads as follows:-
"The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that with the payment of
#5.40 on the basic rates in April, 1985 the Productivity
Agreement in respect of Rail Operative staff was finalised,
and no further agreement was put in place since the
termination of that agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim for a productivity increase in basic pay on
foot of a reduction in staff numbers since that date.
The Court however notes the extent of the reduction in staff
numbers since April, 1985 (some 500).
Given the significance of this reduction in staff the Court
recommends that the parties discuss the consequences of such
reduction and the adjustments necessary for the operation of
the service.
The Court recommends that the parties, in these discussions
take account of such issues as either party may wish to
raise, and seek to reach an agreement which will address the
needs of the staff and will secure the co-operation
necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the
service".
3. Both sides drew different conclusions from the recommendation
and sought clarification from the Court. By letter of the 8th
June, the Court clarified the matter as follows:-
"The Court did not concede the Group's claim in respect of
payment on foot of the reduction in numbers that has taken
place since 1985.
The Court took cognisance of the fact that a reduction of
numbers of such magnitude would have an impact on the
operation of the rail service.
The Court in the light of the information available is not
in a position to evaluate the extent of changes necessary to
ensure the efficient operation of the service.
The Court accordingly has recommended that the parties in
discussion carry out this evaluation and that the parties be
free to make such input to discussions as is in the
interests of their constituents".
4. However, despite exchanges of correspondence and several local
level meetings, no agreement could be reached between the parties.
On the 10th August the Group informed the Company that by secret
ballot its members had decided to vote in favour of embarking on
official industrial action in the form of one day stoppages on
selected dates. The first stoppage was scheduled for Friday 24th
August.
A conciliation conference was held on the 22nd August but no
agreement was reached and the national stoppage on the 24th August
went ahead. The Labour Court intervened in the dispute under
Section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
investigation was held on the 27th and 31st August, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in LCR12785 gave the parties the opportunity to
negotiate and put in place a structured agreement which would
(a) recognise that since the termination of the 1975
agreement in 1985 there have been significant staff
reductions, that as a consequence some changes in work
practices and/or increased responsibilities have
resulted, and that these need to be evaluated and
arrangements agreed between the parties as to how the
benefits which have accrued from these changes should
be dealt with,
(b) take account of the financial constraints under which
the Company is operating and the contention of the
Company that in its present viability situation changes
have been and are necessary to secure cost reductions
which together with other savings would sustain that
viability and secure the survival of the Company.
The Court notes that in view of the diverse interpretations by the
parties of the Recommendation such discussions as were held did
not deal with the substantive issues.
Accordingly, having fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in discussion and in their oral and written submissions,
the Court makes the following recommendations.
1. That the Company and Union commence an immediate joint
evaluation of the changes in work practices and or
increases in responsibility which occurred as a consequence
of the reductions in staff during the period 1985 to the
present.
2. Concurrent with the evaluation at 1 above the Company and
the Union commence discussions on present and future
working practices for Irish Rail. These negotiations
should include any issues which may be raised by either
party.
3. That as a matter of urgency and as part of the negotiations
at 2 above the Company and the Union reach agreement on a
fair manner in which to deal with the savings accruing from
1 and 2 above.
(In the context of this paragraph the Court calls on the
parties to reconcile their different views on the manner
which savings have to be dealt with i.e. the view of the
Company being that all savings in expenditure were used to
secure the survival of the Company in the 1985-90 period
and that future savings are required for the ongoing
operation of Irish Rail, and the claim of the Union that a
proportion (formula to be agreed) of any such savings
should accrue to the employees concerned.)
4. That an agreement on these and any other issues the parties
may wish to raise be put in place before 31st December,
1990.
The Court further recommends that the parties consider jointly
requesting the Court to register this agreement.
In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement the Court is
prepared to make available such assistance as is necessary to help
resolve any matters in dispute within the time scale it has
recommended.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
10th September, 1990 ------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman