Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9534 Case Number: LCR14756 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - TRANSPORT SALARIES STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Appropriate clerical structure.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties.
The Court is satisfied that the complaint by the Association as to
the manner in which the reorganisation of the office structure in
Waterford was implemented, following the appointment of the
District Manager, is justified and not conducive to developing and
maintaining good industrial relations.
Where change is envisaged and, in particular, change affecting
staffing levels and promotional prospects, arrangements should be
put in place as will ensure the co-operation of the employees
concerned with such change as may be necessary.
However, notwithstanding the above, the Court is also satisfied,
given the background of the case, including the detailed O & M
study presented to the Court, that the structure now in operation
in the office should be maintained.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9534 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14756
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIES STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appropriate clerical structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the clerical grading structure in the
District Manager's office, Bus Eireann, Waterford. The
existing structure contains the following clerical grades:-
Senior Clerical Officer (S.C.O.) Class 1 and 2
Clerical Officer (C.O.) Class 1,2 and 3
Clerical Assistant (C.A.) Class 1 and 2
In April, 1992, the District Manager retired. At that time
there were two S.C.O. 1's in the district office. One was
clerk-in-charge of the general office/accounts/travel centre.
The other was clerk-in-charge of the schools transport
office. Following advertisement for the District Manager
vacancy, the S.C.O. 1 clerk-in-charge of the general
office/accounts/travel centre was appointed to the vacancy.
Following a review of the clerical structure by the Company,
the S.C.O. 1 clerk-in-charge of schools transport was given
responsibility for all sections. As a result, the overall
clerical staff was reduced by one. The Company claims that,
with the newly appointed District Manger retaining some of
his former duties, the S.C.O. 1 is capable of undertaking the
revised duties. The Union maintains that there is no
justifiable reason to reduce staffing levels and that the
second S.C.O. 1 vacancy should be advertised.
Following the appointment of the new District Manager the
Company commissioned an independent study by the then C.I.E.
Organisation and Methods (O & M) section. The report was
issued in May, 1993. Part of the O & M's findings were as
follows:-
"O & M would question the long term feasibility of
having the S.C.O. 1 responsible for the day to day
operating of both the School Transport and Road
Passenger (Travel Centre) Sections. The reduced
availability of the S.C.O. 1 in the School Transport
Office has meant that some of the day to day operating
duties occasionally fell to the C.O. 1.
The O & M recommends that the day to day Schools
Transport operating duties be transferred to the C.O. 1
in the Schools Transport Office. The S.C.O. 1 should
continue to have an overall supervisory function within
the office."
In view of the above recommendation the Company proposed the
following upgradings:-
C.O. 1 to S.C.O. 2
C.O. 2 to C.O. 1 and
C.A. 1 to C.O. 3.
Since January, 1993, the workers concerned are receiving
rates of pay applicable to the higher grades.
However, the Association still maintain that a second S.C.O.
1 position be advertised.
The dispute was referred by the Association to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, on 18th January, 1995. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Waterford on 5th April.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The O & M report states that "an analysis of the level
of overtime indicates that it has increased by 11% since
the last O & M report". The S.C.O. 1 who was promoted
to District Manager worked an average of 17 hours
overtime per week. The remaining S.C.O. 1 worked an
average of 13 hours overtime per week, giving an average
of 30 hours overtime per week. It is not possible that
one S.C.O. 1 could combine both jobs. It would also not
be possible to redistribute some to the S.C.O. 1 work as
the other clerical grades already have excessive
workloads.
2. The Association has tried on a number of occasions to
reach accord with the Company on the dispute. The
Company has refused, despite the O & M report which
questions the Company's decision to reduce the staffing
levels. The Company declined to attend the Labour
Relations Commission to further deal with the matter
with the result that the Union had to refer the matter
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The S.C.O. 1 has the necessary capacity to undertake the
revised duties. The newly appointed District Manager
retained some of his former duties. Work in the
accountancy area has been re-allocated to the accounts
section. The S.C.O. 1's hours of overtime have
decreased.
2. All staff in the schools office were upgraded as a
result of C.O. 1 being upgraded to S.C.O. 2 and have
been receiving higher rates of pay as a result. Because
of the re-allocation of responsibilities, the current
staffing levels are sufficient.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties.
The Court is satisfied that the complaint by the Association as to
the manner in which the reorganisation of the office structure in
Waterford was implemented, following the appointment of the
District Manager, is justified and not conducive to developing and
maintaining good industrial relations.
Where change is envisaged and, in particular, change affecting
staffing levels and promotional prospects, arrangements should be
put in place as will ensure the co-operation of the employees
concerned with such change as may be necessary.
However, notwithstanding the above, the Court is also satisfied,
given the background of the case, including the detailed O & M
study presented to the Court, that the structure now in operation
in the office should be maintained.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.