Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92643 Case Number: LCR13816 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the preparation of Sunday Rosters for guards and ticket collectors on the Waterford to Dublin train service.
Recommendation:
3. The Court having considered the oral and written arguments of
the parties considers there are no grounds to concede the claim of
the Union.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the schedule and rosters as
proposed by the Company should be operated.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92643 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13816
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the preparation of Sunday Rosters for
guards and ticket collectors on the Waterford to Dublin train
service.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company decided to introduce a new Sunday train
service from Waterford to Dublin from 4th October, 1992. The
new service was to depart Waterford at 14.50 hours. The
workers were informed of the new rosters on 18th September,
1992.
2. The Union disputed the new rosters and refused to work
them as agreement was not sought on their implementation.
Local meetings were held on 25th September, and 2nd October,
1992. Agreement was reached on the rostering of an extra
driver but the parties could not agree the new rosters for the
guard and ticket collector.
3. The workers operate a 6 day normal working week Monday to
Saturday and may be rostered to work for up to 9 hours on any
day. For Sunday work, the workers are paid a minimum of 6.50
hours at double-time, regardless of the number of hours
worked. The decision to operate a third train would require
that the guard and ticket collector, who up to now worked the
evening train, report for duty at 2 p.m. rather than 5 p.m.
They would travel with the 2.30 p.m. train to Dublin and
return on the evening train from Dublin. Similarly the Dublin
crew would operate through to Waterford on the afternoon
service and return to Dublin on the evening train. This
involves an increase in actual working hours from 3.50 to 7
hours for those rostered to work in the afternoon and evening.
4. The service operated on Sunday 4th October. The guard and
ticket collector did not attend at 14.00 as required by the
new roster. A depot person acted as guard and the train
operated to Dublin. The guard and ticket collector attended
for work at their normal Sunday times (17.30 and 17.45).
There was no work available for them and they left the
premises. On Sunday 11th October, the regular guard and
ticket collector operated a "special" Knock train and a
depot person again acted as guard on the new service.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 16th
October, 1992. The Union sought the rostering of an extra
guard and ticket collector, which would involve crews working
to crossing point only (Carlow). The Company position was
that the crews must work "through" to Dublin. No progress was
possible and the service operated on 18th October by the use
of depot persons. The dispute was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 20th October, 1992
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 20th October, 1992.
Recommendation isued to the parties on 28th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers work 6 days per week. Sunday is their rest
day but they have been obliging the Company by working 3 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 workers' conditions of employment.
2. The Union has 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 the agreement. The Company sought and reached
agreement with the drivers but it has no agreement with the
guards or ticket collectors. The Company must uphold the
agreement on consultation. The workers operate the Sunday
links because they are attractive to them. The Company must
be conscious of the workers' social obligations and give due
consideration to them. It is a simple matter for the Company
to roster an extra crew in view of 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 rates 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. If the Company
concede the claim it would lead to repercussive claims with
serious financial consequences. 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 Waterford 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 considers there are no grounds to concede the claim of
the Union.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the schedule and rosters as
proposed by the Company should be operated.
~
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.