Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92767 Case Number: LCR13935 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning Sunday rostering for loco-drivers.
Recommendation:
The Court has examined all aspects of this dispute put forward by
the parties in correspondence and submissions.
The Court does not accept that it is unusual or unreasonable that
employees be requested to work a nine-hour Sunday duty,
particularly since this duty is performed at premium rates of pay.
However, given the very formal rostering arrangements applicable
to locomotive drivers it appears to the Court that changes
necessary to achieve the rosters required to provide the service
which would include an acceptable social dimension would require a
general discussion of the driver roster structures.
Recognising the serious financial constraints under which the
Company has to operate it may be in the interests of all the
parties involved to give consideration to such discussions in the
interests of reducing operating costs.
In all the circumstances of this particular case the Court takes
the view that operation of the service as proposed by the Union is
not unreasonable. The Court accordingly recommends that a roster
along the lines proposed by the Union be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92767 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13935
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Sunday rostering for loco-drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company decided in October, 1992 to introduce a new
Sunday train service from Galway to Dublin. A dispute arose
between the Unions and the Company about the proposed new
rosters. The dispute was addressed by the Labour Court in
LCR13815 dated 17th November, 1992, as follows:
"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".
2. Of the 3 groups of workers involved in the dispute, the
recommendation was accepted by the guards and checkers. It
was rejected by the loco-drivers who refused to work the new
roster. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 8th
December, 1992.
3. The parties agreed to proposals from the Industrial
Relations Officer which provided for a resumption of services
and for further negotiations on the "social dimension" of the
Sunday roster. The Company, at conciliation, put forward a
revised roster which was rejected by the workers (details
supplied). A negotiated solution was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 9th December, 1992. Labour Court
investigations took place on 17th December, 1992 and 14th
January, 1993. The investigation of 17th December, 1992 was
adjourned to allow the Company to submit new rosters for the
consideration of the Court. The proposed new rosters were
submitted to the Court and the Union on 4th January, 1993.
The investigation resumed on 14th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Normal weekday working for drivers is by agreement. The
present agreement allows the Company to roster for 9 hour
working where economies will accrue. However, drivers have a
right to decline 9 hour rostering on a Sunday. The working of
such a roster would mean the drivers would have no "social
dimension" to their rest day.
2. The Company's response to L.C.R. 13815 was that it felt it
could force drivers to work on Sundays. The question of a
driver's right to rest on his rest day was not before the
Court. Low basic wages paid by the Company ensure that most
drivers must work their rest day in order to meet their
financial commitments.
3. The Company in this instance did not allow adequate time
for proper negotiations between the various grades. The
failure to do this led to the failure of the negotiations.
The drivers' work is totally different from that of other
grades and its intensive nature requires separate
consideration. The drivers have always worked on Sundays.
The difference between the cost of the drivers' proposal and
that of the Company is #16. The drivers' proposal does not
require a 9-hour shift and provides for the social dimension
required in L.C.R. 13815. There will be no repercussive
claims (details supplied).
4. The Company's proposals of 4th January, 1993 are
unworkable. The proposals would alter the agreed link
progression structure and weekly link workings (details
supplied). The Company's new proposals require longer hours
to be worked and allow the most junior driver to earn more per
annum than more senior drivers. There would also be problems
with relief and "special" trains.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are 5 regular drivers and 1 relief involved in the
claim. The Labour Court's recommendation No. 13815 has been
accepted without difficulty by all other affected workers.
Despite changes in the Company's original proposals (details
supplied) the drivers continue to refuse to work the new
rosters. It is not unusual for drivers to be rostered for up
to 9 hours on Sunday and this is provided for in the national
agreement.
2. Sunday-work is one of the requirements of the driver's job
as the railway operates on a 7-day week. The Company's
proposals are cost-effective and comply with existing
agreement. With the new service additional costs arise in
respect of other Galway workers and those in Dublin and
intermediate stations. The Company is in a serious financial
position and must operate its services at minimum cost. The
Union's proposals allow for an unwarranted increase in costs
which would undermine cost-effectiveness.
3. The Union has not altered its position since day-one. Its
proposals would necessitate a greater frequency in Sunday
duties than the Company's. The Company, in line with L.C.R.
13815, has addressed the concern expressed by the Union about
the "social dimension." The Company has adjusted hours to
reduce attendance time, included in the roster the
special-link driver and made proposals about the 5 day week.
4. The Company has revised its proposed rosters on a number
of occasions to take into account the "social dimension". Its
roster involves the best use of resources in order to contain
costs. Any further concession would have significant
implications in respect of other workers now and in future
negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has examined all aspects of this dispute put forward by
the parties in correspondence and submissions.
The Court does not accept that it is unusual or unreasonable that
employees be requested to work a nine-hour Sunday duty,
particularly since this duty is performed at premium rates of pay.
However, given the very formal rostering arrangements applicable
to locomotive drivers it appears to the Court that changes
necessary to achieve the rosters required to provide the service
which would include an acceptable social dimension would require a
general discussion of the driver roster structures.
Recognising the serious financial constraints under which the
Company has to operate it may be in the interests of all the
parties involved to give consideration to such discussions in the
interests of reducing operating costs.
In all the circumstances of this particular case the Court takes
the view that operation of the service as proposed by the Union is
not unreasonable. The Court accordingly recommends that a roster
along the lines proposed by the Union be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
------------
29th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.