Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92102 Case Number: LCR13718 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS CRAFT GROUP |
A dispute regarding productivity pay for 560 engineering craftworkers.
Recommendation:
5. The court has very carefully considered the very comprehensive
submissions made by the parties. The Court is forced to the
conclusion that when all the arguments are taken into
consideration the only available source of money with which to
make the payments proposed, is that arising directly from the
reduction in pay roll costs. In the light of Irish Rails present
financial situation none of the additional options taken by other
concerns and organisations as set out in the agreements submitted
are open to the Company.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer with all
the conditions attached thereto be accepted subject to the initial
payment being increased to £15 with effect from the 1st August to
take account of the delay which has come about since the offer was
first made.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92102 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13718
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS CRAFT GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding productivity pay for 560 engineering
craftworkers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The group of Unions made a claim on the Company in
January, 1991 for improved rates of pay for engineering
craftworkers. The claim was rejected by the Company. In
August, 1990, discussions commenced between the Unions and the
Company on a productivity agreement whereby the savings
generated by the agreement would be distributed to the benefit
of both sides.
2. The discussions continued under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission and 6 conciliation conferences were held
from 21st May, 1991 to 21st February, 1992. The Unions issued
a notice of industrial action, effective from 7th October,
1991. Following further negotiations, the conciliation
conferences were adjourned on 29th September 1991, on the
basis that the Company would present productivity proposals to
the Unions by 28th November, 1991. The notice of industrial
action was withdrawn.
3. The Company met the deadline and produced a proposal
document entitled "Vision of the Future" which dealt with
savings generated by job shedding (details supplied). The
time-scale of the agreement would be from March, 1992 to
March, 1994. The productivity savings generated by the
agreement would be shared by the parties and the workers would
receive lump sum payments during the years 1992, 1993 and 1994
(details supplied).
4. The Unions were dissatisfied by the proposed monetary
payments and by the fact that all productivity savings, with
the exception of the savings generated by job shedding, were
not taken into account in the proposals.
The Company's position at conciliation, on 21st January, 1992,
was that it was not in a position to measure anything other
than payroll savings. The Unions conducted a ballot of their
members and the Company's proposals were rejected.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12th
February, 1992 and a Labour Court investigation was scheduled
for 26th February, 1992. This date was cancelled as prior to
the investigation and at the request of the parties a further
conciliation conference was held on 21st February, 1992 at the
Labour Relations Commission. At the conference, some text
changes were agreed and the monetary terms were revised to
provide for phased payments of weekly allowances rising from
£10 in mid 1992 to £30 in mid 1994. It was agreed that the
new proposals would be put to ballot with a recommendation for
acceptance.
6. The revised proposals were rejected by the workers. The
Court was later requested to re-schedule the dispute, under
the original referral for investigation. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 27th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In recent years, the Unions have been concerned about the
loss of internal and external pay relativities for
craftworkers. There is also concern about the future of the
engineering workshops (details supplied). The Unions believe
that future pay movement within the Company will have to be on
the basis of rewarding flexibility and the removal of
demarcation barriers rather than simply by productivity. The
Unions, conscious of the need for a radical new departure
proposed to the Company that a working party be established to
design and prepare proposals which would:-
"(a) Turn around the productivity situation in the rail
workshops thus generating sufficient resources to
satisfy the claim, and
(b) Which would enable the craft workers in the Company
to have a rate of pay which was broadly comparable
with other craft workers in different sectors of the
economy".
2. The Company's response in its document "Vision of the
Future" is disappointing as it is simply another flexibility
deal which fails to compensate the craftworkers for the
changes it seeks. The document has been rejected twice by the
workers and at this stage the workers have no confidence that
the Company's approach either meets their aspirations or is
likely to produce the results required to improve the
section's performance.
3. The Company is seeking to share the savings generated by
a reduction in staff. The Unions find that there is
additional productivity being sought by the Company (details
supplied). The Company is seeking to benefit from greater
productivity and changed work practices (details supplied).
By not paying the productivity increases on to the basic rate,
it is departing from the norm for this type of agreement.
This departure is unacceptable to the workers, whose pay scale
is already considerably behind the "downtown" rate and a
previously established internal relativity.
4. The Unions' present claim is for a 30% improvement in
basic wages for craftworkers in the Company. The increases
would be financed by the monitored savings generated by
multi-skilling, world class manufacturing, new technology and
ISO9,000 (details supplied). The Unions are now seeking a
lead-in payment of £20 per week for the implementation of the
document "Vision of the Future", with further payments to be
made as targets are reached. Other radical changes as
outlined (details supplied) should be implemented as soon as
possible with the benefits shared by the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has not got the financial resources to make
special increases in pay to any category of staff. The
proposals in the document "Vision of the Future" call for
co-operation and flexibility to improve performance and obtain
specific targets. This would make possible a reduction in the
number of workers with a consequent saving in payroll costs
which would be shared on a 50-50 basis over the 3 years of the
proposed agreement.
2. The net payroll savings arising from productivity coupled
with the achievement of set targets are the only real
measurement of the success of the Agreement. The document is
as much a survival plan as a productivity deal. If the
Company is to remain in business, the customer must be
provided with a safe, reliable service at an economic price.
The engineering sector has a vital role and the proposed
agreement is the mechanism for its survival. The targets can
only be achieved if the workers agree to work in a totally
flexible, non-demarcation organisation, with the elimination
of time consuming non-essential activities.
3. The Company's financial position (details supplied) will
not allow for the reduction of workers to finance a
productivity deal without a guaranteed mechanism to ensure
that the necessary performance targets are met. The
productivity payments must be dependent on the sustained
achievement of targets. The productivity payments must be
off-scale for a reasonable amount of time to ensure this. The
repercussive effects of a special increase in pay to any
section of staff would cause difficulties in productivity
discussions underway with other grades.
4. Any payments by the Company which are not related to
payroll savings would be in contravention of the provisions of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
This would lead to repercussive claims. The Company's offer
is a unique opportunity for the craftworkers to improve their
rates of pay with open-ended proposals. The workers can
benefit even more than the outlined weekly savings provided
more payroll saving are generated. The proposed agreement
provides enhanced job security in the radically new transport
environment being created (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The court has very carefully considered the very comprehensive
submissions made by the parties. The Court is forced to the
conclusion that when all the arguments are taken into
consideration the only available source of money with which to
make the payments proposed, is that arising directly from the
reduction in pay roll costs. In the light of Irish Rails present
financial situation none of the additional options taken by other
concerns and organisations as set out in the agreements submitted
are open to the Company.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer with all
the conditions attached thereto be accepted subject to the initial
payment being increased to £15 with effect from the 1st August to
take account of the delay which has come about since the offer was
first made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
23rd July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.