Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9514 Case Number: LCR14709 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (S.I.P.T.U.;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION (N.B.R.U.;IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS (I.C.T.U. |
Upgrading of senior depotpersons.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the detailed
submissions from the parties. In particular, the Court notes that
an examination by the I.P.C. found that the new equipment had no
significant impact on the claimants. Furthermore the use of the
new equipment is covered in the "Blue Book".
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim
for revised rates of pay.
The Court considers that during the first six months of operation
the claimants did go through a difficult period and, accordingly,
recommends payment of an ex-gratia sum of #300 per person as
compensation to the workers involved in the initial introductory
period and in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9514 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14709
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (S.I.P.T.U.)
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION (N.B.R.U.)
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS (I.C.T.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Upgrading of senior depotpersons.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a claim for upgrading of senior
depotpersons to the grade of A class supervisors as a result
of the replacement of the 'Almex' ticket issuing machines
with the new 'Crouzet' ticket issuing machines.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission in 1992. There was no agreement at conciliation
conferences which took place on 17th August, 1992 and 14th
October, 1992. At a conference on 2nd November, 1992, acting
on a suggestion by S.I.P.T.U., the following proposal was
accepted:
"That both parties agree to the full implementation of the
Crouzet ticketing equipment nationally on the following
basis:-
(a) That the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) be
commissioned to assess the impact of the equipment on
N.B.R.U and S.I.P.T.U. members by examining and
comparing present operations before introduction of the
equipment with operations six months after the
equipment's introduction.
(b) That both sides acknowledge that the introduction of
the equipment on this basis is without prejudice to the
current claim.
(c) That it is acknowledged that the Company proposes no
changes at this time in manning levels in any station
as a result of the introduction of Crouzet equipment.
If the Company in the future proposes any changes in
manning levels at stations which will not have Crouzet
Equipment, these changes will be negotiated through
procedures in the normal way. No staff will be removed
or suffer a loss of earnings until all procedures are
exhausted."
The dispute was also included in the Rail Operative Productivity
Agreement which was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No.
LCR14417, issued on 25th April, 1994. Section 7 of that
recommendation follows:-
"SENIOR DEPOTPERSONS
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."
The IPC's report was issued on 9th August, 1994. A further
conciliation conference was held on 10th November, 1994. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 5th January, 1995, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th
February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The IPC did not carry out its investigation six months
after the introduction of the Crouzet machines on 20th March,
1993. The Company stated that the investigation would take
place only after the equipment, both fixed and portable, was
fully introduced on a system wide basis. The Industrial
Relations Officer's proposal refers only to fixed equipment.
2. The IPC report does not deal with the additional
responsibilities for workers dealing with the Crouzet
machines. The ticket issuing speed in the Crouzet is eight
times slower than the Almex machine. This is a cause of
annoyance for passengers. Self auditing, cash management and
fault finding were easier with the Almex machine. The
Crouzet machines are extremely noisy.
3. The Crouzet machine has to be set up for operation
(polling) by the senior depotpersons. 'Polling' is the
transfer of data from one Crouzet computer booking office
machine to another computer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Almex machine had become obsolete and was in need of
replacing. The Crouzet machine, which is electronic, is
typical of the type of ticket machine in use world wide.
Initial problems with the introduction of the Crouzet machine
have been resolved.
2. The IPC's report (details supplied to the Court)
supports the Company's view that there are no grounds for a
"new technology" claim or the upgrading to supervisory
status.
3. The workers involved in the claim have already received
productivity payment of #14.49 on the basic rate for changes
in work practices, including the use of the new Crouzet
machine. Granting the Union's claims would cost the Company
#360,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the detailed
submissions from the parties. In particular, the Court notes that
an examination by the I.P.C. found that the new equipment had no
significant impact on the claimants. Furthermore the use of the
new equipment is covered in the "Blue Book".
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim
for revised rates of pay.
The Court considers that during the first six months of operation
the claimants did go through a difficult period and, accordingly,
recommends payment of an ex-gratia sum of #300 per person as
compensation to the workers involved in the initial introductory
period and in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C O'N/U.S. ------------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.