Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD927 Case Number: LCR13569 Section / Act: S26(4) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the upgrading of 7 Engineering Operatives who are involved in the construction and maintenance of bridges (the Bridge Gang).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the
Court is of the view that the appropriate body to investigate
this claim is the joint working party which is currently in
existence. In view of the length of time which this claim has
been under consideration the Court strongly recommends that the
working party referred to above should give consideration of
this claim a priority.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD927 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13569
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(4) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the upgrading of 7 Engineering
Operatives who are involved in the construction and maintenance
of bridges (the Bridge Gang).
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1990 the Union submitted a claim for the
upgrading of 7 Engineering Operatives on the basis that some of
the duties which they carried out consisted of duties outside
those applicable to the Engineering Operative Grade. The
Company rejected the Union's claim stating that as the claim was
a cost increasing one it was precluded under the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery. The Bridge Gang have received
all wage round increases and in 1988, in line with all
Engineering Operatives, received a special pay increase of £10
per week. The payment was made on foot of a productivity
agreement but was not quantified with regard to the work being
undertaken by the Bridge Gang.
The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 20th August, 1990. Conciliation conferences
were held on the 28th September, 1990, the 6th and the 26th
September, 1991 and the 29th October, 1991 at which agreement
was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 7th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work being carried out by the Bridge Gang consists
of duties above those of Engineering Operatives. Due to
the skilled nature of the work the Union claims that the 7
workers concerned should be upgraded. The amount sought by
the Union is £20 per week on the basic rate of pay.
2. The £10 which the workers received in 1988 was paid to
all rail operative grades under a productivity/flexibility
agreement and did not take into consideration the extra
duties carried out by the Bridge Gang.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is experiencing difficulties in meeting
pay increases under the P.E.S.P. and as a result the 4%
increase due to Engineering Operatives on 1st October, 1991
is being paid in two moieties of 2%. Because of these
difficulties the Company cannot entertain the Union's claim
for upgrading - a claim which because of its cost
increasing nature is precluded under the terms of the
P.E.S.P. and the P.N.R.
2. The Company contends that though the £10 paid in 1988
was paid across the Board under the productivity /
flexibility agreement it was in excess of what the Bridge
Gang would have received had their work been quantified.
3. A joint working party has been established to discuss
the work practices of Engineering Operatives, with a view
to generating savings. The working party has only had one
meeting to date but the Company would suggest that the
issue in dispute should be considered and investigated by
the working party.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the
Court is of the view that the appropriate body to investigate
this claim is the joint working party which is currently in
existence. In view of the length of time which this claim has
been under consideration the Court strongly recommends that the
working party referred to above should give consideration of
this claim a priority.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
20th February, 1992
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman