Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92640 Case Number: LCR13815 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the manning of the Galway/Dublin trains on Sundays.
Recommendation:
3. The Court having considered the oral and written arguments of
the parties is of the view that the manner in which this issue was
dealt with by management was not conducive to a dispute free
implementation. The Court does not consider a piece meal approach
to scheduling situations which depend for their effective
operation on the agreement of groups of employees in different
areas is satisfactory. In the event of similar such situations
arising in the future the Court recommends that adequate notice of
change is given to all of the employees concerned and the
necessary consultation and/or negotiations of the implementation
of such changes are carried out in good time and with all of the
employees concerned at the same time.
Notwithstanding the above, the Court considers the schedule as
proposed by the Company should be operated in this instance.
The Court makes this recommendation in recognition of the severe
competitive and financial constraints under which the Company is
operating. The Court considers however that following the
operation of the schedule the parties should further examine the
situation with a view to seeking an arrangement for the operation
of the service in a manner which will be as cost effective as the
proposed schedule and will include a social dimension in the
interest of the employees.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92640 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13815
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manning of the Galway/Dublin trains on
Sundays.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company decided to introduce a new Sunday train
service from Galway to Dublin from 4th October, 1992. The new
service was to depart from Galway at 14.50 hours. The workers
were informed of the new rosters on 24th and 28th September,
1992.
2. The Unions disputed the new rosters and refused to work
them as agreement was not sought on the implementation of the
new service. Local meetings took place on 1st, 2nd and 3rd
October, 1992 but no agreement was possible. The train
service scheduled to commence on Sunday 4th October was
cancelled.
3. A further local meeting was held on October, 8th and as no
resolution was possible the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. In the interim the service due to
operate on Sunday October 11th was operated by the workers,
without payment. Conciliation conferences were held on 16th
and 17th October, 1992 but no progress was possible. At
conciliation it was agreed that the service would be operated
on a once-off basis on 18th October. The Company would use
the money it had saved on 11th October to fund an arrangement
satisfactory to the Unions while keeping within its budget for
the two Sundays together.
4. The workers work a 6 day normal working week Monday to
Saturday and may be rostered for up to 9 hours on any day.
For Sunday working, the workers are paid a minimum of 6.50 hours
at double time, regardless of the number of hours worked. The
Company's new rosters for Sunday include revised and extended
turns of duty of up to 8 hours and 55 minutes. The Unions
rejected the rosters and proposed alternative rosters which
included an additional cleaner, guard, ticket checker and
driver. This would involve crews working to crossing point
only (Athlone) and the Dublin crews would operate the train
from there. The Company position was that crews must work
"through" to Dublin. The dispute was referred by the the
Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 19th
October, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 20th October, 1992. Recommendation by letter
was issued to the parties on 28th October, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers work 6 days per week. Sunday is their rest
day but they have been obliging the Company by working hours
to keep the system in operation. The new rosters proposed by
the Company are unacceptable as they allow no social time to
the workers on their rest day. The present arrangements were
negotiated some time ago with the Company. The Company is now
proposing to disimprove the worker's conditions of employment.
2. The Unions have an agreement with the Company which allows
for new rosters to be displayed for 14 days after
negotiations. The Company's action in this case is a clear
breach of that agreement. The workers are not obliged to work
on Sunday. They do so because the current links are
attractive to them because of remuneration and social
obligations.
3. If the Company wish to operate the new service, they
must make the conditions attractive to the workers. The
Company's principal argument against the Unions' proposals
(details supplied) relates to the cost factor. When both sets
of proposals are examined, the difference in cost is only
#200. This is a very small amount given the revenue which
will be generated by the new service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new rosters were produced so as to enable the Company
to compete with road operators. The rosters are in accordance
with existing conditions of employment. Given its present
financial position, it is vital that the Company make the best
use of its resources, in order to contain costs. The
Company's competitors are not liable to premium payments and
accordingly do not incur the same costs.
2. The Unions are seeking to maximise the number of workers
attracting the minimum "Sunday" payment. Concession of the
claim would price the Company out of a market where its costs
are already higher than its competitors. The Unions have
acknowledged that the Company's essential task is survival in
the face of low fares and intense competition. If the Company
was to concede the claim, it would lead to repercussive
claims, with serious financial consequences.
3. The Company has not breached any agreement in its
notification of a change in roster (details supplied). The
adjustments which have been made are in keeping with normal
changes and the agreement on payment for Sunday duty. The
complementary extension of rosters has been agreed outside
Galway in respect of the new service. These arrangements
should not be compromised.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court having considered the oral and written arguments of
the parties is of the view that the manner in which this issue was
dealt with by management was not conducive to a dispute free
implementation. The Court does not consider a piece meal approach
to scheduling situations which depend for their effective
operation on the agreement of groups of employees in different
areas is satisfactory. In the event of similar such situations
arising in the future the Court recommends that adequate notice of
change is given to all of the employees concerned and the
necessary consultation and/or negotiations of the implementation
of such changes are carried out in good time and with all of the
employees concerned at the same time.
Notwithstanding the above, the Court considers the schedule as
proposed by the Company should be operated in this instance.
The Court makes this recommendation in recognition of the severe
competitive and financial constraints under which the Company is
operating. The Court considers however that following the
operation of the schedule the parties should further examine the
situation with a view to seeking an arrangement for the operation
of the service in a manner which will be as cost effective as the
proposed schedule and will include a social dimension in the
interest of the employees.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
17th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.