Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95215 Case Number: LCR14837 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning the allocation of overtime in respect to train guards at Limerick.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the
arguments made at the hearing.
The Court is of the view that the main reason for the difference
in overtime earnings between train guards and depotpersons arises
as a result of the 9 hours rostering limit applying to train
guards.
The Court, having considered all aspects of this case, recommends
that the 1993 Agreement continues to operate, with the
clarification arrived at during the conciliation conference of
11th January, 1995.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95215 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14837
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 the allocation of overtime in respect to
train guards at Limerick.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There are 4 train guards attached to the Limerick depot.
Of the guards, 2 are represented by Services Industrial
Professional Technical Union (S.I.P.T.U.) and 2
represented by the National Bus and Rail Union
(N.B.R.U.). The Unions submitted a claim that overtime
working, necessitated by the absence of appointed
(regular) guards, should in the first instance be
allocated to regular guards in preference to
depotpersons. The guards work a 6-day standard week
with rostered daily overtime. They are also rostered to
cover Sunday services at premium rates.
2. An agreement reached in 1993 on the allocation of
overtime stated as follows:-
"1. In accordance with custom and practice the relief
of all graded positions at Limerick would be
performed by depotpersons on superior duty.
2. Where a depotperson is not available to perform the
relief of a guard for the 17.40 hours
Heuston/Limerick (i.e. Link 2), the guard on Link 1
(i.e. 08.35 Limerick/Heuston) would remain in
Dublin to work back the 17.40 hours
Heuston/Limerick train."
The effect of the agreement was that guards would only
be offered overtime on the first day of another guard's
absence in the event of a depotperson not being
available.
3. The Unions were seeking that the guards be given first
preference in the event of guards' overtime becoming
available. The claim was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were
held on 6th December, 1994 and 11th January, 1995. The
following proposal emerged at conciliation:-
"Links 1 and 4:- guards to have first option to
perform guard duty overtime on an emergency basis
(i.e. overtime occurring at short notice as
opposed to rostered overtime)
Links 2 and 3:- depotpersons to perform overtime
when available."
The proposal was acceptable to S.I.P.T.U.. It was
rejected by the N.B.R.U. following a clarification by
the Company that, when a depotperson acts up to guard in
a non-emergency situation, his position has to be
subsequently filled by another depotperson on an
overtime basis.
4. No further progress was possible through conciliation.
On 30th March, 1995, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 22nd June, 1995 in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is an accepted norm within the Company that when
relief is required on an overtime basis, that the
overtime is offered firstly to the workers of that
particular grade. The guards in Limerick are adversely
affected by their overtime being offered to
depotpersons.
2. Depotpersons benefit out of proportion to their grade by
doing overtime in both their own and superior grades.
The guards, on the other hand, have no opportunity to
work overtime in other grades.
3. Prior to 1990, guards were able to enhance their
earnings by working overtime on guard's duties.
Following a dispute, the Company limited the guards'
working hours to 9. This led to the anomaly whereby
guards are limited to working 9 hours a day while
depotpersons relieving guards can and do work up to 20
hours per day. There is no equity in the Company's
position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An agreement exists since 1993 in relation to the
allocation of overtime to cover guards' relief. At
conciliation the Company clarified the agreement to the
satisfaction of 2 of the guards.
2. The Union's claim would breach an existing National
Agreement concerning the maximum rostering of 9 hours
daily for guards. The treatment of the 2 guards is not
out of line with the position in other depots throughout
the Country.
3. The depotpersons are recruited and specifically trained
to provide relief for guards. The guards have a
significant opportunity to earn premium payments for
overtime and Sunday duty.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the
arguments made at the hearing.
The Court is of the view that the main reason for the difference
in overtime earnings between train guards and depotpersons arises
as a result of the 9 hours rostering limit applying to train
guards.
The Court, having considered all aspects of this case, recommends
that the 1993 Agreement continues to operate, with the
clarification arrived at during the conciliation conference of
11th January, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th July, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.