Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92703 Case Number: LCR13925 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL AND RAIL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning a productivity payment for travelling ticket checkers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the issue before it. It appears to the Court that the claim by
the Unions is in respect of an interim arrangement while the
Company's objective still remains the establishment of a grade of
train conductor. The Company's offer is in respect of a more
limited range of duties.
In this regard the Court has some difficulty with the Union's
computation of the potential benefits arising from the presently
proposed work changes. It is apparent that insofar as certain
individuals or groups' contributions are likely to be greater than
others, the concept of "allowances" to compensate for this fact is
fair insofar as it leaves the existing overall wage structure
intact.
All parties acknowledge the critical state of the railway system
at present. Only by a prompt and determined effort to introduce
the necessary changes can its future be assured. It will always
be possible to correct mistakes or eliminate inequities when the
new system is fully operational and the railways thereby
demonstrated their suitability for the massive investment required
in them, thus safeguarding the future of all concerned.
For this reason the Court recommends that the Company's proposals
be accepted, the #4 to be inclusive, to accord with the recent
clarification of L.C.R. 13366.
The Court also recommends that the parties commence further
negotiations on the Company's other proposals for the amalgamation
of train and station ticket collectors to generate yet further
savings.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92703 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13925
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL AND RAIL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a productivity payment for travelling
ticket checkers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is in respect of 47 regular and 7 acting full-time
travelling ticket collectors. The claim arises out of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 13366 which dealt with productivity
payments for rail operatives was issued on 26th July, 1991. It
stated inter-alia as follows:-
"(i) That with effect from 1st January, 1991, an increase of
#4.00 per week be paid to rail operatives.
(ii) That this payment be continued up until 30th June, 1992
when the rates of pay to apply as a consequence of the
negotiations at III and IV below come into effect.
(iii) That the parties commence immediate negotiations on
such changes as are considered necessary, including
changes in work practices, with a specific commitment
to the elimination as far as possible of practices
which have over the years been identified as sources of
excessive cost. These negotiations to be completed on
or before the 30th June, 1992.
(iv) That the parties in the context of the discussions at 3
above agree rates of pay to be applicable to the
specific categories of rail operatives whose work is
affected by changes in work practices or as a
consequence of a reduction in staff.
The cost of such rates of pay to be derived from the
distribution of net savings arising as a consequence of
the actual implementation of changes in work practices
and staff reductions identified as a result of III
above. Such savings to be divided on an equitable
basis. Net savings to be the wage costs saved less
costs such as redundancy, investment in technology,
extra overtime and additional labour costs. The Court
is conscious of the extreme difficulties currently
affecting the Company and it would be for the parties
to agree when and how the rates of pay in accordance
with this clause would be paid".
2. The #4 payment as recommended was implemented
retrospective to 1st January, 1991 and is being paid to date.
Since the recommendation issued, the parties have negotiated
on various issues (details supplied). On 14th September,
1992, the Company made a final proposal to the Unions. The
proposal would generate a saving of 11 train ticket positions
and would increase basic pay by approximately #9.80 per week,
inclusive of the interim payment of #4. In addition to the
increase in basic pay an additional flat payment of #5 per
week would be made for the operation of a new portable ticket
issuing machine and other changes in work practices (details
supplied).
3. The claim was rejected by the Unions. The N.B.R.U.
reserved its position until the issue could be evaluated by an
independent assessor. S.I.P.T.U. reiterated its claim of 4th
March, 1991 seeking a basic rate of #250 per week to
compensate for changes likely to come about as a result of the
closure of booking offices and the implementation of the new
portable ticket machines. S.I.P.T.U. also sought that a 10%
commission to be paid to workers based on receipts.
4. The Company's proposed new rate was #181.58 plus shift
premium. The new rate was inclusive of the #4 interim payment
and exclusive of the proposed #5 flat payment for the
operation of the new ticket machines.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 16th
June, 25th June and 3rd November, 1992. No progress was
possible on the issues in dispute and the claim was referred
to the Labour Court on 18th November, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 3rd December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's final offer is unacceptable to the Unions.
The proposals coupled with plans to close booking offices will
change the job specification of the workers in a dramatic
manner (details supplied). This change is not reflected in
the Company's monetary offer, particularly the flat payment
for the operation of the new ticket machines. Any payment in
respect of the new machines should be incorporated in the
workers' basic wages.
2. The increased workload of the workers has not been
assessed to the satisfaction of the Unions. The savings in
relation to the full proposals have not been assessed at all.
An industrial engineer from S.I.P.T.U. assessed the work of
the claimants and presented his report in March, 1991 (details
supplied). The report concluded that there was a case to be
answered by the Company. The Company refused to discuss the
report. The Unions would have no objection to a similar
assessment being undertaken by an outside professional body.
3. The Union's claim for a salary of #250 per week is fair
and equitable when one takes into account the savings from the
closure of booking offices and the extra revenue to be
collected by the workers on board the train. As no booking
offices will be opened in the future, a 10% commission on
sales is reasonable given the further effort which will be
required from the workers. A commission payment is made to
similar workers in other companies (details suppied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claims for increases in wages of travelling ticket
collectors lodged by the Unions were rejected by the Company.
The Company did agree to have further discussions, without
commitment, when the new ticket machine was being introduced.
The Company's offer is on the basis of payroll savings and
savings are split 50/50 with the workers.
2. The Company's offer is made in the context of L.C.R. No.
13366 and is in accord with the terms of the Recommendation.
The Unions' claims are precluded under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The cost of the
claims cannot be sustained by the Company. The Unions'
aspirations for a pay increase can only be met in the present
financial circumstances through the sharing of payroll
savings.
3. Collection of fares is an integral part of the duties of
travelling ticket checkers. The duties as proposed by the
Company contain nothing unreasonable (details supplied).
Concession of the Unions' claims could not be sustained by the
Company and would lead to repercussive claims. The Unions
rejected a proposal by the Company for the amalgamation of the
duties of travelling ticket checkers and station ticket
collectors. The refusal of the Unions to negotiate on this
proposal is a clear breach of the Court's Recommendation No.
13366. The proposal would have generated increased savings
which are vital in the existing competitive climate. Any
savings generated would be shared.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the issue before it. It appears to the Court that the claim by
the Unions is in respect of an interim arrangement while the
Company's objective still remains the establishment of a grade of
train conductor. The Company's offer is in respect of a more
limited range of duties.
In this regard the Court has some difficulty with the Union's
computation of the potential benefits arising from the presently
proposed work changes. It is apparent that insofar as certain
individuals or groups' contributions are likely to be greater than
others, the concept of "allowances" to compensate for this fact is
fair insofar as it leaves the existing overall wage structure
intact.
All parties acknowledge the critical state of the railway system
at present. Only by a prompt and determined effort to introduce
the necessary changes can its future be assured. It will always
be possible to correct mistakes or eliminate inequities when the
new system is fully operational and the railways thereby
demonstrated their suitability for the massive investment required
in them, thus safeguarding the future of all concerned.
For this reason the Court recommends that the Company's proposals
be accepted, the #4 to be inclusive, to accord with the recent
clarification of L.C.R. 13366.
The Court also recommends that the parties commence further
negotiations on the Company's other proposals for the amalgamation
of train and station ticket collectors to generate yet further
savings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
18th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.