Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95729 Case Number: LCR15107 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS;SIPTU;TSSA |
Rail operative supervisors productivity.
Recommendation:
The Court in examining this case is dealing with the payment to
the Rail Operative Supervisors for productivity.
A difference of opinion exists in relation to the value of the
productivity, the Union arguing that it has given productivity
"which has not been credited".
There is also an argument over the non-inclusion of positions
suppressed in the Company's calculations.
Given the complexity of the issues involved the Court recommends
as follows:
(1) An agreed Independent Third Party be appointed to assess the
productivity contribution of this group.
(2) In the meantime the Supervisors to be paid as per the
I.R.O.'s Recommendation pending the outcome of the assessment.
(3) If the independent assessor arrives at the same conclusion as
the Company, then the figure to be accepted by the Supervisors.
(4) If the figure arrived at by the Independent assessor is
greater than the Company figure then the Supervisors payment
to be adjusted by the Company.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95729 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15107
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Rail operative supervisors productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions'
productivity claim on behalf of 118 rail operative
supervisors. The claim, which was lodged in early 1992, was
the subject of a conciliation conference at the Labour
Relations Commission in September, 1992. It was decided that
the issue would be best addressed following the resolution of
productivity negotiations with the rail operative grades.
These negotiations concluded with the implementation of the
operatives productivity agreement on 17th May, 1994.
Following the implementation of the rail operative
productivity agreement, a conciliation conference took place
in July, 1994 resulting in the implementation of an £8.00
off-scale payment with effect from 1st June, 1994,
the appropriate implementation date of Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Subsequent to the conciliation conference the parties agreed
the setting-up of a Joint Working Party to investigate the
matter.
In the period 1994/1995 negotiations took place but agreement
could not be reached and the dispute was referred back to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took
place on 28th September, 1995 following which the Industrial
Relations Officer (IRO) put forward a proposal (details
supplied to the Court) which both parties agreed to recommend
for acceptance. The proposal provided for an increase of 3%
under Clause 3 of PESP (inclusive of the £8.00 off-scale
payment) and was based on a reduction in staff numbers of 19.
The proposal was rejected by the workers.
A further conciliation conference took place on 5th December,
1995. As no progress was made the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 21st December, 1995 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 15th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disparity between the supervisors' rates of pay with
the grades they supervise needs to be addressed.
2. LCR No. 13366, was based on a claim in relation to the
suppression of posts in the period 1986/1991. While the
recommendation did not fully support the rail
operatives' claim it did recommend a payment of £4.00
per week. The supervisors are seeking similar treatment
and that 4 positions suppressed prior to 1st January,
1992 be taken into account.
3. The Company has acknowledged the suppression of 5 road
freight supervisors' posts during the re-organisation in
1991. While the Company argue that these positions were
suppressed due to a loss of business, freight business
has increased since and no replacements have been
appointed.
4. At the Labour Relations Commission the Company indicated
that the suppression of 14 positions amounted to
£563,000. This would equate to an average saving of
£40,200. The savings on the 9 positions suppressed,
which were not included amounts to £361,800.
5. The Company's offer is unacceptable and is based solely
on savings from the suppression of the 14 positions
referred. No consideration is given for
responsibilities arising from the I.S.R.S. system, the
new disciplinary machinery, or the responsibility for
the new equipment. This additional involvement in
itself justifies a substantial increase.
6. The Unions are seeking an increase of £45.00 per week to
each supervisor to apply in full from 13th May 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. In seeking to reach agreement on an acceptable
Productivity Scheme, the Company with the assistance of
the Labour Relations Commission has explored all avenues
in identifying the requisite payroll savings.
2. Following this lengthy process, the Company considers
that the proposal as issued by the Industrial Relations
Officer on 29th September, 1995 is the best possible in
all the circumstances.
3. In this context, the Company has stretched the
identification of payroll savings in order to maximise
the benefits available. In the circumstances the
Company request the Court to recommend that the terms of
the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court in examining this case is dealing with the payment to
the Rail Operative Supervisors for productivity.
A difference of opinion exists in relation to the value of the
productivity, the Union arguing that it has given productivity
"which has not been credited".
There is also an argument over the non-inclusion of positions
suppressed in the Company's calculations.
Given the complexity of the issues involved the Court recommends
as follows:
(1) An agreed Independent Third Party be appointed to assess the
productivity contribution of this group.
(2) In the meantime the Supervisors to be paid as per the
I.R.O.'s Recommendation pending the outcome of the assessment.
(3) If the independent assessor arrives at the same conclusion as
the Company, then the figure to be accepted by the Supervisors.
(4) If the figure arrived at by the Independent assessor is
greater than the Company figure then the Supervisors payment
to be adjusted by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.