Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9495 Case Number: LCR14416 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;SIPTU |
Claim on behalf of resident crossing-keepers for : (i) reduced hours of attendance; (ii) condition of some residences (iii) overtime, Sunday and Public Holiday payments; (iv) admission to pension and welfare schemes; (v) improved rates of pay.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company has responded to this claim by
way of offer of 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P..
Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking into
account the provisions of both P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claims in regard to wage
rates, hours of attendance, overtime, Sunday and holiday payments.
The Court notes that a mechanism exists for adjusting individual
rates of pay under the Marks system and recommends the Union use
this mechanism to deal with individual claims where they can be
justified.
The Court recommends that the Company agree to discuss how the
Staff Welfare Scheme could be extended to the claimants and that
both parties examine further the application of the pension scheme
taking into account the statutory position and the housing
implications of compulsory retirement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9495 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14416
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of resident crossing-keepers for : (i)
reduced hours of attendance; (ii) condition of some
residences (iii) overtime, Sunday and Public Holiday
payments; (iv) admission to pension and welfare schemes; (v)
improved rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned in this dispute are employed by the
Company as resident crossing-keepers. Crossing-keepers are
required to attend at level crossings throughout the rail
network to open and close crossing gates. There are two
categories of crossing-keepers, resident (who occupy
residential accommodation at the crossing) and non -
resident.
In 1980, a formula (marks system) for determining rates of
pay was agreed. Marks are allotted to each crossing, based
on the type of crossing, number of gate openings (day and
night), Saturday attendance, spreadover, etc. The rate of
pay determined is an "all in" rate for attendance up to 24
hours daily. Prior to this the workers were on personal
rates related to the type of service which they provided.
Because of the special nature of their employment the workers
are excluded from joining the Company's Pension and Welfare
Schemes. However, they are not obliged to retire at 65 years
of age.
In early 1991, the Union sought a major review of the rates
of pay and conditions of employment on behalf of the workers
concerned. Local level discussions took place but no
progress was made and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
29th September, 1993, but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 4th February,
1994. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company must acknowledge that a serious problem
exists in relation to the resident crossing-keepers'
rates of pay and conditions of employment. It should
stop hiding behind its overall financial position and
the restrictive clauses of national agreements.
2. The workers concerned have the lowest rates of pay and
the worst conditions of employment in Irish Rail.
3. Resident crossing-keepers are required to provide 24
hours, seven day cover. No overtime payments are made.
4. Constant attendance is a requirement and a reality.
This type of working schedule creates considerable
personal stress.
5. There is no justification in excluding the workers from
the Company's pension and welfare schemes.
6. All of the residences occupied by the workers are old
and need to be modernised. The Company has a
responsibility to bring the accommodation up to an
acceptable level.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Resident crossing-keepers are paid for attendance and
not for work performed. Their duties are intermittent
and cannot be compared to any other rail operative
grade.
2. The resident crossing-keepers are paid in accordance
with the "Marks" system agreed with the Rail Operative
Trade Union Group in 1980.
3. The P.E.S.P. agreement specifically excludes the serving
or concession of cost increasing claims. However, in
the context of the current Rail Operative Productivity
Negotiations the Company has offered resident crossing-
keepers an increase of 3% for continued flexibility in
relation to spreadover and the passing of special trains
(i.e. Clause 3 P.E.S.P.). This offer is dependent upon
acceptance and implementation of the productivity
proposals.
4. The state of the Company's finances do not permit
special increases in pay to any group of staff. The
direct costs involved in this claim are extremely large
and substantial repercussive claims would follow any
concessions e.g. non-resident crossing-keepers.
Additional costs of this nature would pose a major
threat to the Company's overall viability and have
serious implications for employment.
5. Resident crossing-keepers may seek a review of their
"Marks" under the existing agreement if it is considered
that additional duties/responsibilities have been
undertaken.
6. The crossing-keepers covered by the claim are resident
at the crossings and are often assisted by members of
their family in opening and closing the gates. The
existing welfare scheme which covers full-time staff
would not be appropriate in their case.
7. Resident crossing-keepers are not required to retire at
65 years of age. They are specifically excluded from
the existing Wages Grade Pension Scheme which is a
statutory scheme. In any event 40% of the
crossing-keepers are ineligible for entry to the Pension
Scheme on age grounds. Resident crossing-keepers are
however, eligible to benefit on an ex-gratia basis under
the Company's Voluntary Scheme. This scheme is a
non-contributory, company funded scheme.
8. Resident crossing-keepers benefit from the provision of
free housing by the Company. This represents a
substantial cost benefit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company has responded to this claim by
way of offer of 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P..
Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking into
account the provisions of both P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claims in regard to wage
rates, hours of attendance, overtime, Sunday and holiday payments.
The Court notes that a mechanism exists for adjusting individual
rates of pay under the Marks system and recommends the Union use
this mechanism to deal with individual claims where they can be
justified.
The Court recommends that the Company agree to discuss how the
Staff Welfare Scheme could be extended to the claimants and that
both parties examine further the application of the pension scheme
taking into account the statutory position and the housing
implications of compulsory retirement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April,1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.