Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91150 Case Number: LCR13283 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in pay for four Road Passenger Chargehands involved in gate security work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the opinion that the changes in conditions of the
workers concerned do not warrant the regrading as sought by the
Union. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91150 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13283
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in pay for four Road
Passenger Chargehands involved in gate security work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned operate on a twenty four hour shift
basis eight hours per shift over five days in the Broadstone
depot. The job and its grade was introduced in December, 1977.
The current basic weekly rate is #155.27. The duties of the
workers are to provide a security presence at the main entrance to
the Company's depot at Broadstone, to ensure that unauthorised
persons do not enter the premises and to record times of vehicles
entering and leaving. They are also now responsible for access to
the cash office. The cabin in which the workers operate is
equipped with telephones, button control for automatic barrier
plus intercom and controls for locking system in cash office. In
December, 1989 one of the entrances to the depot where six other
workers were employed on security duties was closed and previously
in 1987 a position of night foreman was withdrawn. By letter of
28th March, 1990 the Union wrote to the Company and requested a
meeting to discuss the conditions and responsibilities of the gate
security staff at Broadstone. Meetings subsequently took place in
May and July at which the issues of additional annual leave, an
uncertified sick leave scheme and an increase in basic pay were
discussed. Agreement could not be reached at local level and the
dispute was subsequently referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court (the issues of additional annual leave and sick
leave were subsequently settled). A conciliation conference was
held on 18th January, 1991. The Union's position is that the
duties of the workers have increased significantly and their
duties and responsibilities warrant their regrading as top
chargehands. The chargehand rate paid to engineering operative,
grade 1 ranges from #148.49 to #176.65 p.w. and for engineering
operative, grade 2 from #146.04 to #168.84 p.w., when acting in a
chargehand capacity they are paid an additional weekly allowance
of #7.45. The Company's position is that the additional duties
cited by the Union in its claim do not alter their traditional
duties and the claim is cost increasing and, therefore, contrary
to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery. Agreement
could not be reached at conciliation and on 26th February, 1991
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 18th April,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In December, 1989 the Company decided to close one of the
entrances to the depot where six workers were employed on
security duty. The work which was done at that entrance was
transferred to the one main entrance in Broadstone which was
still covered by the four existing workers concerned here. In
addition, there had always been a night foreman on duty in the
depot; however, this position no longer exists and the work
which was previously carried out by the foreman was
transferred to these workers. Also, all vehicles entering or
leaving the depot have to be checked going in and out and a
record has to be kept of the numbers of the vehicles and the
times. The workers' duties go far beyond that associated with
security. However, the four workers take their job seriously
and co-operate in all ways in making the job efficient.
2. There are no supervisory staff in attendance at the depot
between midnight and five thirty a.m. and all responsibility
in the depot rests with the gate security workers. If there
is a breakdown at night the call comes through to the workers
concerned who must make the necessary arrangements by
contacting the district managers etc. The workers also keep a
book of names, addresses and phone numbers of drivers who may
be required during the night to operate buses, if Aer Lingus
should require transport to transfer passengers from Dublin to
Shannon. The workers are also responsible for the provision
of keys to the private security staff and various other duties
(details supplied to the Court). A great amount of
responsibility and reliability is expected from these workers.
3. Since negotiations commenced on this claim additional
responsibilities have been placed on the workers. The workers
now have to look after a two - way radio system which allows
drivers who are paying in their cash to get in through a
security door after they have identified themselves. This
door can only be opened by the security men in the hut and the
security door that they open is at least one hundred yards
away. The Company introduced this system without any
consultation with the staff or trade unions. The workers
basic rate of pay of #157 is totally out of line with their
responsibilities and duties. In comparison the garage
chargehand and the chargehand in the clothing stores receive
#179 and have a lot less responsibility. The workers should
be placed on the higher scale so that they are paid the
appropriate rate for the duties involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January, 1987 the Company decided to withdraw the
presence of a night foreman in the garage. The Union has
claimed that as a result of this the four workers have
additional responsibilities as they now have to deal with bus
breakdown situations which occur between midnight and six a.m.
However, in the event that any breakdowns are reported by
phone to the chargehand on duty during this period he is only
required to contact the District Manager who is responsible
for dealing with such matters. In any event most vehicles
would have returned to base before midnight and the instances
of such breakdowns would be very few. The additional
responsibilities cited by the Union in support of its claim do
not to any great extent alter the traditional duties of the
workers concerned.
2. At a total cost of approximately #3m the Company has
implemented in full the pay terms provided for in the
Programme for National Recovery which does not expire until
30th September, 1991 for the workers concerned in this claim.
All cost increasing claims are debarred under the Programme
and in any event the Company's financial position is such that
cost increasing claims for any of its employees could not be
met from within the Company's resources. The Union has
quantified its claim as for the chargehand rate paid to
engineering operatives in the Company's garages. However, the
rate of pay for the Road Passenger Chargehand grade (i.e. the
workers concerned), in common with that for all road passenger
operative grades has at no time been related to that of
workers in the maintenance function. Totally distinct and
separate agreements are in existence for the workers in these
two functions. In all the circumstances, the Union's claim
should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the opinion that the changes in conditions of the
workers concerned do not warrant the regrading as sought by the
Union. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
16th May, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.