Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92660 Case Number: LCR13934 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS |
Elimination of two chargehand posts.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends that a chargehand position in the general operative
grade be retained.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92660 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13934
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Elimination of two chargehand posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company wishes to eliminate the posts of two engineering
operative chargehands who were employed supervising vicemen in the
lifting shop at Inchicore works.
In early 1991, agreement was reached between the parties on
proposals for the re-grading of engineering operatives employed on
vicemen duties. Such staff did semi-skilled work on the overhaul
and repair of carriage bogies. As a result of the agreement the
engineering operatives involved were either:
(1) re-graded as carriage and wagon fitters, retrained and
given an increase in basic pay,
(2) re-deployed to other engineering operative work and
compensated, or
(3) voluntarily retired on redundancy.
Following the agreement, the Company replaced the work practices
associated with semi-skilled staff with practices associated with
skilled staff. The Company claims that new work practices have
effectively done away with the chargehand positions and that there
are no vicemen to supervise. The Union rejected the claim. Local
level discussion failed to resolve the issue and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th September, 1991. A proposal at
conciliation that one engineering operative be paid the chargehand
allowance on a personal basis was rejected by the Union. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd October, 1992.
The Court hearing took place on 7th January, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1976, a productivity agreement was reached with general
workers. It brought together all grades of semi-skilled
workers into one category of group one operatives. The
chargehand vicemen became general operative chargehands and as
such the area of responsibility expanded beyond the area of
vicemen duties.
2. When negotiations took place on the re-grading of vicemen,
no reference was made to the position of chargehands or what
effect the elimination of the chargehands would have for
general operatives.
3. General operatives have not entered into any agreement on
the elimination of the chargehands.
4. The Company's proposals would considerably reduce
promotion opportunities for general operatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In negotiating the changes in work practices in the
Lifting Shop and in introducing the new practices, the two
chargehand positions have effectively been done away with.
2. These working practices while new to the Lifting Shop,
were based on existing work practices common to craftworkers
throughout Inchicore.
3. The work practices now in operation in the Lifting Shop
are no longer those of semi-skilled staff but are based on
craft worker practices.
4. In other workshops the duties which one of the Chargehands
had carried out, the lifting of carriages, were carried out by
supervisors in the normal course of their work.
5. In the main the tasks of the other chargehand were
controlling the work of the vicemen and arranging the supply
of material for this work. As there are no longer any
engineering operatives or vicemen in the shop, the chargehand
duties no longer exist.
6. The staff who had formerly carried out "Viceman Duties"
have been compensated either by retraining and paying them a
higher rate of pay or by lump sums on their transfer away from
this work.
7. Because of the changes in work practices there are no
longer two chargehand engineering operative positions in the
shop. The purpose of the negotiations and the eventual
agreement between the Company and the Trade Unions on viceman
duties was to ensure that the staff involved in this work were
re-trained to a higher level of skill and accepted the
appropriate craft practices common to other workshops, in
particular, the practice of controlling and lifting of
vehicles by a supervisor. It is the Company's intention to
put a supervisor in charge of the lifting of vehicles in this
shop. This is the same procedure as in other workshops where
craft practices prevail.
8. In the Company's present difficult financial situation, it
is incumbent on Management to introduce cost efficient and
effective work practices. The elimination of two chargehand
positions, because there is no work for them, is the
application of good management practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends that a chargehand position in the general operative
grade be retained.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
28th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.