Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/91/90 Case Number: LCR13208 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MAINTENANCE OPERATIVES UNION |
Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. It is accepted by both sides that the fuelling of push/pull
trains is work appropriate to the claimants and has been done at
the platform by grades other than Engineering Operatives I only
because the claimants have refused to do it. The Company
assertion that the work could be done by the claimants during
normal working hours was not seriously contested. The reason that
those fuelling the units at present work overtime is, according to
the Company, related entirely to work requirements unconnected
with fuelling.
The dispute has its origin in the situation that the claimants
were not required to do the fuelling in the initial stages when
only one pull/push train was in operation and could be fuelled by
Engineering Operatives in the Valeting Department during daily
maintenance. Since the introduction of four such trains, two are
fuelled each day during maintenance in the Depot and the other two
are fuelled at the platform.
The Court considers that the work of fuelling at the platform is
appropriate to the claimants and that it would not have created
overtime for them had it been undertaken when requested by the
Company. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of
the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9190 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13208
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MAINTENANCE OPERATIVES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the fuelling of locomotive and control
cars of push/pull trains on the platforms at Connolly station by
the claimants who are engineering operatives (group 1). The
Company introduced push/pull trains (which have a locomotive at
one end, carriages and a control car at the other end) in 1989 at
Connolly station. There are now four push/pull trains in
operation. There are fuelling points in the locomotive shed, in
the valeting depot and on the platforms. Initially when only one
of the push/pull trains was in operation fuelling of the
locomotive and control car was carried out in the valeting shed.
The service pattern now is that on every second day, two push/pull
trains go to the valeting depot for servicing which includes
maintenance checks, fuelling of the control car and cleaning. The
locomotives are fuelled, serviced and undergo maintenance checks
in the locomotive shed. Each day two push/pull trains require
fuelling and cleaning only, they do not need to go to the valeting
shed. The cleaning is done on one of the station platforms. The
Company requires that the control car and locomotive should be
fuelled at the platform where facilities exist. The claimants are
refusing to do this work, which is presently being performed by
other grades on an overtime basis. The Unions claim that the
workers concerned are entitled to receive compensation for loss of
earnings since the introduction of push/pull trains. Management
has rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 1st October, 1990.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 17th December, 1990 and
21st January, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 21st January, 1991. A Court
hearing was held on the 20th February, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the first push/pull train came into operation the
workers concerned who work in the locomotive shed, were told
by Management that they would not be required to fuel this
train as it involved new technology. All servicing of this
train was carried out by other grades on an overtime basis
i.e. rest day working and these grades undertook the fuelling
of the train.
2. As these other grades were carrying out the duties of the
workers concerned this meant that the claimants lost
considerable overtime, rest day working. It should be noted
that the workers concerned are not well paid and have suffered
financial loss as the result of their work being allocated to
other grades. The Company has settled other disputes by
giving financial compensation and could easily do the same in
this instance. The amount involved is not significant.
3. The claimants are refusing to fuel the locomotive and
control cars on the platforms at Connolly station until they
are adequately compensated for the loss of earnings which they
have suffered as a result of their work being done by other
grades.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under a Productivity Agreement negotiated with the trade
unions in 1976, a large number of semi-skilled and unskilled
shopworker grades were amalgamated into four engineering
operative groups with incremental pay scales which gave
sizeable increases in pay. There are two main groups i.e.
engineering operatives group 1 and group 2 with existing pay
scales as follows:-
Engineering Operative Group 2.
From #148.13 to #171.01 per week (11 year scale)
Engineering Operative Group 1.
From #150.62 to #178.82 per week (11 year scale)
Fuellers are graded as engineering operative group 1. In
1988, engineering operatives group 1 and Group 2 received a
special increase in basic pay of #10.00 per week on the basis
of a productivity/flexibility agreement. One of the
provisions of this agreement was:-
"(c) All normal work practices will continue to apply in
full (these include, for example, acceptance of
design changes in vehicles, tools and equipment;
acceptance of new work methods not requiring
additional effort etc.")
2. The Company requires the fuelling at the platform to be
carried out by engineering operatives group 1 and this is work
appropriate to that grade. Generator vans on conventional
trains have always been fuelled by engineering operatives at
platforms. At two Labour Court conciliation conferences it
was suggested that an extra payment should be made, possibly
by way of overtime, for fuelling the control cars at the
platforms. There are no valid grounds for any additional
payment, the staff concerned have ample capacity to do the
work and there is no necessity for overtime working. Indeed,
the Productivity Agreement of 1976 (the terms of which
continue to apply in full under the 1988 Agreement) contains a
specific provision as a basic principle that "staff are
committed to the elimination of overtime and rest day
working."
3. The workers concerned are graded as engineering operatives
group 1 because fuelling is a very significant part of their
duties. When an engineering operative group 2 performs
fuelling duties he is paid the group 1 rate for the time spent
on this work. The engineering operatives group 1 concerned
have the capacity to perform fuelling duties at Connolly
platforms. There are no valid grounds why they should not
carry out these duties. There is no basis for an additional
payment; to do so would be to concede extra payment simply
because staff refuse to carry out normal duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is accepted by both sides that the fuelling of push/pull
trains is work appropriate to the claimants and has been done at
the platform by grades other than Engineering Operatives I only
because the claimants have refused to do it. The Company
assertion that the work could be done by the claimants during
normal working hours was not seriously contested. The reason that
those fuelling the units at present work overtime is, according to
the Company, related entirely to work requirements unconnected
with fuelling.
The dispute has its origin in the situation that the claimants
were not required to do the fuelling in the initial stages when
only one pull/push train was in operation and could be fuelled by
Engineering Operatives in the Valeting Department during daily
maintenance. Since the introduction of four such trains, two are
fuelled each day during maintenance in the Depot and the other two
are fuelled at the platform.
The Court considers that the work of fuelling at the platform is
appropriate to the claimants and that it would not have created
overtime for them had it been undertaken when requested by the
Company. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
11th March, 1991 Chairman.
T.O'D/J.C.