Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91245 Case Number: LCR13448 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the proposed re-location of locomotive drivers in Limerick.
Recommendation:
10. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
visited the location to inspect the existing and proposed new
premises, the facilities in each and the routes to be followed
from the proposed new location. The Court agrees that the
claimants have a legitimate claim with regard to the additional
amount of walking which would be required on their being relocated
in the new premises which are in the main station area, but is
satisfied that the appropriate way to recognise this has already
been proposed by the Company, i.e. payment for the additional
walking time in the context of the existing agreement covering
such matters.
Taking all aspects of this case into account the Court recommends
that the Company's requirement that the claimants relocate in the
new premises be implemented but that the amount of compensation
offered, a lump sum payment to be divided between the claimants
should be increased to #10,000 and that such sum be accepted by
the claimants in full settlement of their dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91245 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13448
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed re-location of locomotive
drivers in Limerick.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 33 locomotive drivers employed in Limerick and these
are presently accommodated at Roxboro Road where they sign on and
off duty before joining their engine. These drivers are
supervised by three locomotive supervisors and two regional
inspectors.
3. The Company, as part of a plan to rationalise its supervisory
structure, proposes to relocate the locomotive drivers in new
accommodation. This would result in the elimination of two
supervisory posts.
4. The new accommodation is located in Colbert Station
approximately 700 metres from the drivers' present accommodation.
As the drivers join their engines at various locations within the
Limerick complex there will be additional walking distance
(maximum of 470 metres) for some drivers after they have signed on
at the new office. The Company envisages the elimination of
walking distance in some cases.
5. The Company offered to pay walking time, in accordance with
existing agreements, to those drivers who are required to walk an
additional distance. The Company also offered a lump sum payment
of #5,000 to be divided amongst the drivers as compensation for
loss of superior duty earnings as a result of the suppression of
the two supervisory posts.
6. The Union rejected the Company's proposals and offer on the
following grounds:-
(a) unsuitability of the building;
(b) greater dangers on the route from new premises to their
workplace (engines);
(c) loss of efficiency and
(d) loss of promotional opportunities.
7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
3rd February, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 15th
February, 1991 (a date suitable to the parties). As no agreement
was reached the Commission, with the consent of the parties,
referred the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on 17th
July, 1991. The Court visited the work site on the 18th
September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The overall efficiency of the present operation would
suffer as a result of the Company's proposed move. At present
all facilities for maintenance, shunting and changeover of
crews are located in the one area. The move would disrupt
these arrangements (details supplied to the Court).
2. Because the drivers skills are confined to one particular
fascet of railway operations, their promotional outlets are
limited. The elimination of the two supervisory posts will
worsen this situation. In addition the drivers will be
deprived of experience and extra earnings as they have covered
for the supervisors during periods of annual and special leave
and illness.
3. It is estimated that 88% of drivers will have to walk the
extra distance twice a day carrying a heavy satchel with
equipment essential for train operations. The route is unsafe
and is open to the elements. There is no proper footpath,
inadequate lighting and loose debris lying around (details
supplied to the Court).
4. The new building is unsuitable. It is exposed to
excessive noise and fumes from both trains and traffic. The
facilities in the building are inadequate for the drivers
needs. There are no provisions for toilets, showers and fire
escapes (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The relocation of the locomotive drivers is necessary in
order to efficiently and effectively manage staff resources in
a cost effective manner.
2. The new premises has been specially erected to accommodate
the drivers and has improved facilities. The Company has
offered to meet the Union and address any specific problems
they may have regarding the facilities in the new building.
3. The drivers who are required to walk the extra distance,
will be paid in accordance with current agreements. In
addition the Company has offered compensation in respect of
the loss of supervisor duty earnings.
4. Similar arrangements were implemented at Cork station.
5. The costs involved in maintaining a vacant premises and
carrying two surplus positions cannot be sustained
indefinitely.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
visited the location to inspect the existing and proposed new
premises, the facilities in each and the routes to be followed
from the proposed new location. The Court agrees that the
claimants have a legitimate claim with regard to the additional
amount of walking which would be required on their being relocated
in the new premises which are in the main station area, but is
satisfied that the appropriate way to recognise this has already
been proposed by the Company, i.e. payment for the additional
walking time in the context of the existing agreement covering
such matters.
Taking all aspects of this case into account the Court recommends
that the Company's requirement that the claimants relocate in the
new premises be implemented but that the amount of compensation
offered, a lump sum payment to be divided between the claimants
should be increased to #10,000 and that such sum be accepted by
the claimants in full settlement of their dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th October, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.