Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94217 Case Number: LCR14417 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning productivity proposals.
Recommendation:
1. ROSTERS:
On the basis of the information made available to the Court, it is
considered that serious difficulties with regard to agreement on
rosters is only likely to arise in a small number of cases. The
Court recommends therefore that on the issue and acceptance of
this recommendation the impact of links and rosters should be the
subject of discussions at local level.
Where difficulties arise and agreement cannot be reached the
issues should be resolved in discussion with the Regional Manager
and the Regional Personnel Officer.
2 TRAIN TICKET COLLECTORS:
Taking into account the increases in pay, and the allowances which
are on offer by the Company and which are subject to all payments
related to basic pay, the Court recommends that the offer should
be accepted (note that the figure of #7.00 referred to in the
"Blue Book" had been increased to #12.00). On the question of
drop safes and the security of cash the Court recommends that the
Company arrange for a locked pouch or other personal cash system
to be introduced as soon as possible following the implementation
of the proposals.
3. CENTRAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Court finds that the proposals reached in negotiations and
outlined in the "Blue Book" should be accepted.
4. SIGNAL-PERSONS OTHER THAN C.T.C.S
The Court finds no grounds to adduce that the grade of signal
person is being eliminated and notes that the additional work will
only arise where working arrangements permit. Accordingly the
Court finds that the proposals being offered are not unreasonable.
(As part of this agreement the Court does not find it unreasonable
that monitors in the Waterford area be operated).
5. PARCELS DEPOT-PERSONS (CONNOLLY, HEUSTON, CORK, LIMERICK,
GALWAY, WATERFORD)
Having considered the outcome of negotiations and noting that the
employees here concerned will receive additional allowances when
carrying out certain of the duties allocated, the Court does not
find grounds to recommend any improvement in the offer made by the
Company.
6. PARCELS DEPOT-PERSONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS
The Court does not find grounds to recommend any further
improvement in the Company's offer and accordingly recommends that
it be accepted. The Court recommends that the employees here
concerned, while carrying out the duties allocated, should retain
their designation of Parcels depot-person on a person to holder
basis.
7. SENIOR DEPOT-PERSONS
The Court recommends that the proposals on offer be accepted.
However, given the discussions which have been ongoing with these
workers, the Court further recommends that arrangements be put in
hand to have the Irish Productivity Centre carry out the
evaluation agreed by the parties and issue a report. The report
to be the subject of discussions between the parties.
8. TRAIN GUARDS
The Court notes a Company commitment that the immediate
implementation of these proposals will not require that Guards be
redeployed outside their location. The Court recommends that the
lump sum payments offered by the Company be increased by 20%. The
Court further recommends that a payment of #600 be made to Freight
Guards who are not required to move out of Freight Guards'
positions at this time for acceptance of the facility of the One
Person Operation and a further #600 when they come off freight
train working for One Person Operation.
9. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION:
The Court notes that exceptionally, in respect of this package of
proposals, loss of earnings will be compensated. The Court notes
that the Company, in discussions on rosters, is committed to
minimise as far as possible any likely losses which may be
incurred, and accordingly finds the maximum payment of #5,000 is
not unreasonable.
10. LOCOMOTIVE DRIVERS:
The Court recommends as follows:
(i) One Person Operation Bonus - The offer of 20.5% be
accepted
(ii) Mileage Payments - That the removal of mileage payment
be dealt with in the following manner.
(a) Each Driver be paid a lump sum of #1,000.
(b) Drivers who received mileage payments in 1993 to be
paid compensation of two and a half times their
1993 mileage earnings. The maximum payment referred
to in Paragraph 9 will exceptionally, not apply to
this paragraph.
(c) Each Driver receive an increase in pay of #5.77 per
week.
(iii) Expenses
That expenses be paid in accordance with the National
Agreement.
That with regard to Connolly 1 and Connolly 2, the
present arrangements should continue on a person to
holder basis with the following exception. To
facilitate more efficient operation when working out
of Inchicore, drivers should agree to book on at that
point.
(iv) Miscellaneous Duties
It is the responsibility of the Driver to ensure at
all times that his locomotive is fully serviced and
his train meets the necessary requirements.
The Court expects that in general the work necessary
to achieve this will be carried out by other staff
where available.
(v) Payment for Sunday Working
The Court does not find grounds for the payment of the
One Person Operation bonus on Sunday except where
there is One Person Operation.
(vi) Mileage Worked
The Court recognises and accepts that there is need
for a restriction on the driving hours which should be
undertaken. The Court notes that in the light of
developments in the future on working time this issue
will need to be addressed. The Court further notes
that there is already a time restriction in place
(nine hours) although this can be exceeded in certain
circumstances.
For the purpose of this agreement however and until
the question of working time has been addressed the
Court recommends that there should be a limit on
mileage of 360 miles per day.
(vii) Direct Recruitment to Dart
The proposed recruitment of drivers direct into
D.A.R.T. has raised concerns that such might preclude
applications for transfers from existing drivers from
the depots from which that can occur under existing
arrangements. The Court recommends that these
existing arrangements continue in place and that the
Company guarantee that its proposed direct recruitment
scheme will not in any way interfere with existing
drivers' rights.
(viii) Chemical Train Working
The Chemical Train payment should be made exclusive of
the One Person Operation bonus and should be applied
to drivers where in accordance with these
recommendations both payments would arise (e.g. where
the driver has worked five days on One Person
Operation and the Chemical train is worked on the
sixth day).
11. SUNDAY WORKING
The Court would refer the parties to LCR14238 (copy of the
recommendation paragraph attached) which sets out the position in
regard to Sunday working. The Court is conscious that this would
have to be discussed and new arrangements agreed in the overall
context of working hours and in the meantime notes the
understanding of the Unions that the operation of the service on
Sundays is an integral part of the overall system.
12. FLEXIBILITY
Concern has been expressed that the flexibility requirement built
into the proposals might be used in an unreasonable manner to the
detriment of individuals. If that were to occur it would severely
strain the trust between the parties which will be essential to
the operation of the agreement. To this end both parties are
urged to ensure that the agreement is implemented in a fair and
reasonable manner. The Court is satisfied that existing
mechanisms, which can be utilised at local level, provide
protection against any abuse and would remind both parties that
the services of the Court may, ultimately, be called upon, if
required, if the matter is not otherwise resolved.
13 REVIEW:
It is imperative given the nature and extent of the changes being
proposed in this agreement that the parties continuously monitor
its operation to ensure a smooth transition, and that any
difficulties in the operation of the proposals are resolved
expeditiously.
In the event of any dispute or necessity for clarification the
Court recommends the work be carried out, if necessary under
protest, and the matter in dispute be resolved in accordance with
the agreed procedures.
Twelve months after the implementation of the proposals the
parties should evaluate the operation of the agreement, including
savings realised and costs incurred, to ensure that given the
basis on which the scheme was devised savings have been realised
to finance the proposals, and the staff have been given credit
commensurate with the savings achieved as the scheme intended.
Having regard to the long and protracted negotiations which have
taken place over the past four years, culminating in the intensive
work carried out since the beginning of this year, and which
involved all the industrial relations bodies of the state, the
Court would wish that each and every employee would give the most
careful consideration to the consequences which could follow for
their Company, and for many citizens and employees from an overall
inability to accept these changes.
Management also, must remain aware at all times of the concern of
employees that if the proposals are accepted and implemented
individual employees might be "taken advantage of" and must ensure
that overall safeguards are in place to ensure that no individual
manager at any level may treat in a less than reasonable manner
any employee by reason of this productivity agreement.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94217 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14417
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5) INDUSTRIAL ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning productivity proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. A Labour Court investigation into the above dispute took
place on 20th and 21st April, following an agreement between the
parties on 15th April, 1994.
2. The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, the detailed
information supplied and the outcome of the negotiations under the
chairmanship of the Labour Relations Commission.
3. The Court recognises that this is the biggest revision of the
operation of the Irish Rail system which has ever taken place.
That, of itself, implies disruption to the "way of life" of every
employee who will remain and the manner in which work is
undertaken.
4. These changes are unavoidable. The Company faces serious
problems in the industry through greater liberalisation of
transport and severe and increasing competition. Change, the
Court is satisfied, is necessary if the Company is to improve its
commercial viability, provide an effective and efficient rail
service for the community and maintain and develop secure and
sustainable employment for its employees into the next century.
5. Given the intensity and depth of the negotiations which have
taken place and which resulted in the "Blue Book", the Court has
not attempted to replace that outcome and is satisfied that
generally it should form the basis of the Agreement.
6. For these reasons the Court has no hesitation in recommending
that the proposals in the "Blue Book" as amended by the following
recommendations be accepted as a whole, by all employees of the
Company, even groups of employees of whatever category who may
feel that their particular reservations have not been sufficiently
addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ROSTERS:
On the basis of the information made available to the Court, it is
considered that serious difficulties with regard to agreement on
rosters is only likely to arise in a small number of cases. The
Court recommends therefore that on the issue and acceptance of
this recommendation the impact of links and rosters should be the
subject of discussions at local level.
Where difficulties arise and agreement cannot be reached the
issues should be resolved in discussion with the Regional Manager
and the Regional Personnel Officer.
2 TRAIN TICKET COLLECTORS:
Taking into account the increases in pay, and the allowances which
are on offer by the Company and which are subject to all payments
related to basic pay, the Court recommends that the offer should
be accepted (note that the figure of #7.00 referred to in the
"Blue Book" had been increased to #12.00). On the question of
drop safes and the security of cash the Court recommends that the
Company arrange for a locked pouch or other personal cash system
to be introduced as soon as possible following the implementation
of the proposals.
3. CENTRAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Court finds that the proposals reached in negotiations and
outlined in the "Blue Book" should be accepted.
4. SIGNAL-PERSONS OTHER THAN C.T.C.S
The Court finds no grounds to adduce that the grade of signal
person is being eliminated and notes that the additional work will
only arise where working arrangements permit. Accordingly the
Court finds that the proposals being offered are not unreasonable.
(As part of this agreement the Court does not find it unreasonable
that monitors in the Waterford area be operated).
5. PARCELS DEPOT-PERSONS (CONNOLLY, HEUSTON, CORK, LIMERICK,
GALWAY, WATERFORD)
Having considered the outcome of negotiations and noting that the
employees here concerned will receive additional allowances when
carrying out certain of the duties allocated, the Court does not
find grounds to recommend any improvement in the offer made by the
Company.
6. PARCELS DEPOT-PERSONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS
The Court does not find grounds to recommend any further
improvement in the Company's offer and accordingly recommends that
it be accepted. The Court recommends that the employees here
concerned, while carrying out the duties allocated, should retain
their designation of Parcels depot-person on a person to holder
basis.
7. SENIOR DEPOT-PERSONS
The Court recommends that the proposals on offer be accepted.
However, given the discussions which have been ongoing with these
workers, the Court further recommends that arrangements be put in
hand to have the Irish Productivity Centre carry out the
evaluation agreed by the parties and issue a report. The report
to be the subject of discussions between the parties.
8. TRAIN GUARDS
The Court notes a Company commitment that the immediate
implementation of these proposals will not require that Guards be
redeployed outside their location. The Court recommends that the
lump sum payments offered by the Company be increased by 20%. The
Court further recommends that a payment of #600 be made to Freight
Guards who are not required to move out of Freight Guards'
positions at this time for acceptance of the facility of the One
Person Operation and a further #600 when they come off freight
train working for One Person Operation.
9. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION:
The Court notes that exceptionally, in respect of this package of
proposals, loss of earnings will be compensated. The Court notes
that the Company, in discussions on rosters, is committed to
minimise as far as possible any likely losses which may be
incurred, and accordingly finds the maximum payment of #5,000 is
not unreasonable.
10. LOCOMOTIVE DRIVERS:
The Court recommends as follows:
(i) One Person Operation Bonus - The offer of 20.5% be
accepted
(ii) Mileage Payments - That the removal of mileage payment
be dealt with in the following manner.
(a) Each Driver be paid a lump sum of #1,000.
(b) Drivers who received mileage payments in 1993 to be
paid compensation of two and a half times their
1993 mileage earnings. The maximum payment referred
to in Paragraph 9 will exceptionally, not apply to
this paragraph.
(c) Each Driver receive an increase in pay of #5.77 per
week.
(iii) Expenses
That expenses be paid in accordance with the National
Agreement.
That with regard to Connolly 1 and Connolly 2, the
present arrangements should continue on a person to
holder basis with the following exception. To
facilitate more efficient operation when working out
of Inchicore, drivers should agree to book on at that
point.
(iv) Miscellaneous Duties
It is the responsibility of the Driver to ensure at
all times that his locomotive is fully serviced and
his train meets the necessary requirements.
The Court expects that in general the work necessary
to achieve this will be carried out by other staff
where available.
(v) Payment for Sunday Working
The Court does not find grounds for the payment of the
One Person Operation bonus on Sunday except where
there is One Person Operation.
(vi) Mileage Worked
The Court recognises and accepts that there is need
for a restriction on the driving hours which should be
undertaken. The Court notes that in the light of
developments in the future on working time this issue
will need to be addressed. The Court further notes
that there is already a time restriction in place
(nine hours) although this can be exceeded in certain
circumstances.
For the purpose of this agreement however and until
the question of working time has been addressed the
Court recommends that there should be a limit on
mileage of 360 miles per day.
(vii) Direct Recruitment to Dart
The proposed recruitment of drivers direct into
D.A.R.T. has raised concerns that such might preclude
applications for transfers from existing drivers from
the depots from which that can occur under existing
arrangements. The Court recommends that these
existing arrangements continue in place and that the
Company guarantee that its proposed direct recruitment
scheme will not in any way interfere with existing
drivers' rights.
(viii) Chemical Train Working
The Chemical Train payment should be made exclusive of
the One Person Operation bonus and should be applied
to drivers where in accordance with these
recommendations both payments would arise (e.g. where
the driver has worked five days on One Person
Operation and the Chemical train is worked on the
sixth day).
11. SUNDAY WORKING
The Court would refer the parties to LCR14238 (copy of the
recommendation paragraph attached) which sets out the position in
regard to Sunday working. The Court is conscious that this would
have to be discussed and new arrangements agreed in the overall
context of working hours and in the meantime notes the
understanding of the Unions that the operation of the service on
Sundays is an integral part of the overall system.
12. FLEXIBILITY
Concern has been expressed that the flexibility requirement built
into the proposals might be used in an unreasonable manner to the
detriment of individuals. If that were to occur it would severely
strain the trust between the parties which will be essential to
the operation of the agreement. To this end both parties are
urged to ensure that the agreement is implemented in a fair and
reasonable manner. The Court is satisfied that existing
mechanisms, which can be utilised at local level, provide
protection against any abuse and would remind both parties that
the services of the Court may, ultimately, be called upon, if
required, if the matter is not otherwise resolved.
13 REVIEW:
It is imperative given the nature and extent of the changes being
proposed in this agreement that the parties continuously monitor
its operation to ensure a smooth transition, and that any
difficulties in the operation of the proposals are resolved
expeditiously.
In the event of any dispute or necessity for clarification the
Court recommends the work be carried out, if necessary under
protest, and the matter in dispute be resolved in accordance with
the agreed procedures.
Twelve months after the implementation of the proposals the
parties should evaluate the operation of the agreement, including
savings realised and costs incurred, to ensure that given the
basis on which the scheme was devised savings have been realised
to finance the proposals, and the staff have been given credit
commensurate with the savings achieved as the scheme intended.
Having regard to the long and protracted negotiations which have
taken place over the past four years, culminating in the intensive
work carried out since the beginning of this year, and which
involved all the industrial relations bodies of the state, the
Court would wish that each and every employee would give the most
careful consideration to the consequences which could follow for
their Company, and for many citizens and employees from an overall
inability to accept these changes.
Management also, must remain aware at all times of the concern of
employees that if the proposals are accepted and implemented
individual employees might be "taken advantage of" and must ensure
that overall safeguards are in place to ensure that no individual
manager at any level may treat in a less than reasonable manner
any employee by reason of this productivity agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
25th April, 1994 -------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX 1
RECOMMENDATION PARAGRAPH OF LABOUR COURT RECOMMENDATION 14238
The Court, having considered the written submissions and verbal
arguments of the parties, believes that the Company's need to
provide a seven day service for its customers is at risk if
employees insist that Sunday working is voluntary in its absolute
sense.
The problem before the Court relates to two "rights" being in
conflict and in effect appear to cancel each other out. It is
therefore a question as to what is reasonable in these
circumstances. The Court notes that both unions accept the need
to provide a Sunday service whilst reserving the right to protect
workers' legitimate needs to 'rest'. The Court would concur with
the union's vigilance against abuse and would not hesitate to
protect workers from abuse from whatever source.
Where, as in this case, there is a conflict between Irish Rail and
a worker regarding Sunday working, the Court believes that the
balance of convenience must lie with the requirements of the
business and the need of its customers. It seems to the Court
that the employee did have a choice and elected not to attend work
when rostered. As an alternative he could have attended work,
even if that meant working under protest, and pursued his dispute
in accordance with procedure.
The Court would recommend that the mechanism proposed at
conciliation finds acceptance from both parties.
"Sunday working will continue to be covered in accordance
with normal practice. In the event of a problem arising at
any location whereby staff who do not wish to work on a
Sunday may be required to work on the Sunday, every effort
to resolve the problem will be made through local
consultation, at which all options, including the use of
staff from within the area concerned, will be explored. In
the event of a solution not being agreed in time to cover
the Sunday in question, staff will agree to cover the duty
concerned and the matter will be processed through the
normal procedures".
Finally the Court would as part of its recommendation, agree with
the Union that all reference to the disciplinary procedure in this
case should now be deleted from the worker's record.