Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9632 Case Number: LCR15090 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Use of store room by sub-contractor.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court finds that the
Company's position is reasonable and accordingly recommends that the
Union accept their proposal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9632 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15090
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Use of store room by sub-contractor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1991 the Company negotiated an agreement with the
Unions whereby the distribution of Sundries Freight in
Galway on the "Transtrack" network was sub-contracted out.
This resulted in the suppression of two jobs (Foreman and
Checker) in the Stores Area.
2. The contracting out of this work was necessary because of
current and projected financial losses for the Company at
that time. The contractor provided his own storage
facilities away from the Station.
3. As a result of continuing financial losses, the Company
has tendered for and accepted a new contracting
arrangement with effect from 1st February, 1996. The
Company plans to use the Goods Store at the Station in
Galway as a distribution point for its Railink business.
This will result in substantial savings for the Company.
4. The Unions are objecting to the proposed changes and also
to the employment of former Iarnrod Eireann staff by the
sub-contractor. They also state that there was an
understanding in 1991 that if the work returned to the
Store Area that the two jobs lost would be returned to
them. The Company rejects the Unions' claim and insists
that there was no such understanding. It also argues that
there was tacit agreement by the Unions for the use of the
on-site storage facilities.
5. As no agreement was possible between the parties the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on the 17th January,
1996 (Galway) and 2nd January, 1996.
6. Agreement could not be reached at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd January,
1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th
February, 1996. (earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1991 agreement provided that the sub-contractor would
not operate out of Company premises. The Company are now
proposing to break this agreement.
2. There was an understanding in 1991 that if the Sundries
Freight business returned to the Stores Area that the
Unions would get back the suppressed jobs and that Iarnrod
Eireann staff would handle the business.
3. If the sub-contractor uses the on-site storage facilities
compensation based on 2.5 times the annual savings
accruing to the Company, (i.e. the suppressed jobs) should
be paid.
4. The Unions and the members are also concerned that other
types of work which would normally be proper to Iarnrod
Eireann staff will be privatised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company will not pay any compensation to employees
because there was no loss of earnings involved. Any
compensation paid in Galway would have serious
repercussive effects on the Railink business in other
locations.
2. The new sub-contractor will not employ former Iarnrod
Eireann staff.
3. The Company is prepared to make a concession and give 2
hours overtime each morning to the mechanical operators to
get the new system into operation. This will cost the
Company an additional £4,500 per annum.
4. The proposed re-location of the Railink Operations is cost
driven and necessary for the survival of the business in
Galway.
5. Similar type arrangements, as proposed for Galway, are
already in place in many other locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court finds that the
Company's position is reasonable and accordingly recommends that the
Union accept their proposal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
29 February, 1996 ------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.