Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91261 Case Number: LCR13365 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the proposed transfer of a stationmaster from Boyle to Longford.
Recommendation:
9. The Court finds that in respect of the proposals to halt
stations there was agreement that this would be done when the
opportunity presented itself but in any case after the exercise of
discretion by the workers in situ.
The Court has noted this has resulted in some 13 out of a proposed
18 stations being halted.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company
adhere to the terms of the letter of 19th May, 1988. It is noted
that the complainant in this case recognises the financial
difficulites of the Company, and has given a commitment that with
improvements in his domestic circumstances he intends to achieve
its objective.
The Court would request that both parties continue to seek an
arrangement which would allow the worker exercise his discretion
and the Company to progress the halting of stations.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91261 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13365
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed transfer of a stationmaster
from Boyle to Longford.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the Company's ongoing rationalisation programme,
the Company has been reducing the status of a number of stations
to halts. The Company furnished a list of 18 such stations to the
Union in December, 1987, included in the list was Boyle. To date
13 of the stations have become halts. When a station becomes a
halt it is put in charge of an operative grade employee
(haltkeeper) rather than a salaried employee (stationmaster). In
addition to issuing tickets, etc., the haltkeeper performs manual
duties such as those of a signal person and depotperson.
3. The Union objected to the downgrading of the stations in
question. A number of meetings were held at which the Union
outlined their objections and indicated that it would strongly
resist compulsory transfers or redundancies. The Company's
position was that it was obliged to pursue its objectives of
(i) reducing costs and (ii) increasing revenue. The Company gave
a commitment that stationmasters would not be compulsorily made
redundant or compulsorily transferred. The staff reductions were
to be achieved through natural wastage, voluntary severance or
redeployment. The Company confirmed its position to the Union by
letter dated 19th May, 1988. Subsequently 13 of the 18 stations
became halts as a result of direct negotiations.
4. In 1988, the Company approached the stationmaster in Boyle
regarding its proposal to convert the station to a halt. The
Company offered to transfer him on promotion as stationmaster to
Longford. He declined the offer as there was no accommodation
provided at Longford and the move would seriously disrupt his
domestic arrangements. The vacancy at Longford was subsequently
filled.
5. The Company later approached the stationmaster and offered to
transfer him to a clerical position in Longford, at his own grade,
and that he could continue to have the use of the residence in
Boyle and commute to and from Longford by train each day. This
offer was refused. There followed a number of meetings between
the parties at which the Company pressed for the stationmaster's
transfer. The Union responded that because of the worker's
domestic circumstances, a transfer of work location would not suit
him and that the Company was in breach of its commitment with
regard to compulsory transfers of stationmasters.
6. The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 1st August, 199O. Conciliation conferences were
held on 17th November, 199O, 16th January, 1991 and 30th April,
1991. At the last conciliation conference, the Company stated
that the stationmaster at Longford had expressed interest in
taking voluntary severance. It offered the position to the worker
here concerned, with the option of commuting to and from Boyle
until he could make alternative accommodation arrangements. This
offer was declined. The parties agreed to refer the dispute to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 7th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker enjoys the facility of the C.I.E. station house
at Boyle station. He has serious domestic difficulties at
present (family illness, school-going children, etc.) which
makes a transfer for him, at this time, impossible. The
worker has indicated that in the longer, term he would be
prepared to transfer if a suitable post arises and his
domestic problems have been resolved.
2. In a comparable case the Company proposed to downgrade
Carrick-on-Shannon station in 1977 to a halt. It did not do
so until 1988 when the stationmaster applied for voluntary
severance. Therefore, the Company itself has set a precedent
which it should apply albeit on a less extensive time scale,
in this case.
3. The Union rejects the Company's viewpoint that substantial
savings would be effected by the conversion of Boyle station
to a halt.
4. The Company is in breach of the commitment it gave in its
letter of 19th May, 1988, that no stationmaster would be
compulsorily transferred. It should adhere to that commitment
until the stations identified in the Company's initial
proposals have been down graded. This should be done in
consultation and agreement with the workers as was the case in
the thirteen stations which have been downgraded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Down the years on the railway, there have been
rationalisations and closures and it has been necessary to
move staff from location to location. There are various
transfer/disturbance payments agreed with the trade unions to
cover this situation. It has been the Company's policy to
adopt a considerate approach in such situations and to
negotiate agreement. Problems which arose were amicably
resolved. In this case the stationmaster's position appears
to be that he just will not move.
2. The worker has cited the letter of 19th May, 1988 in
support of his position. This letter was written in the
context of normal on-going co-operation with each case being
dealt with on an individual basis and in a fair and reasonable
manner. Specifically because of the problem encountered at
Boyle, the Company indicated to the Union on the 17th December
last that it may be placed in the position of having no option
but to withdraw the letter of 19th May, 1988. The Company is
reluctant to do this as it considers that with a reasonable
approach by all concerned, it should be possible to resolve
the issue without undue hardship to either party.
3. The Company has made considerable efforts to facilitate
the worker here concerned. The Court is asked to recommend
that he accept the transfer of his work location and on this
basis discuss whatever arrangements are necessary to meet his
situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court finds that in respect of the proposals to halt
stations there was agreement that this would be done when the
opportunity presented itself but in any case after the exercise of
discretion by the workers in situ.
The Court has noted this has resulted in some 13 out of a proposed
18 stations being halted.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company
adhere to the terms of the letter of 19th May, 1988. It is noted
that the complainant in this case recognises the financial
difficulites of the Company, and has given a commitment that with
improvements in his domestic circumstances he intends to achieve
its objective.
The Court would request that both parties continue to seek an
arrangement which would allow the worker exercise his discretion
and the Company to progress the halting of stations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
26th July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.