FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Extension of Dart/Recruitment of drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 52 drivers in the operation of the DART services. This number is three short of the number required to crew all services on a rostered basis. Prior to its inception in 1984, agreement was reached between the parties for the transfer of locomotive drivers from Connolly number 1 & 2 depots to crew the DART operation. The drivers transferred on a seniority basis and on the basis of operating confined DART links (rosters) at Fairview and Bray. Progression on to this link would be on the basis of seniority by drivers from both of these depots. Drivers who joined Connolly number 1 & 2 depots after the 13th of May, 1994, do not have the right to transfer to DART driving.
The dispute concerns;
1. direct recruitment of DART Drivers and;
2. the extension of DART services from Bray to Greystones and from Howth Junction to Malahide.
In 1994, the Company sought direct recruitment into DART. The so called "Blue Book" which sets out all of the provisions of the 1994 rail operative productivity negotiations states:-
"It is intended that as and from an agreed date drivers will be recruited direct into DART. This will not immediately benefit the Company in any way as it is intended that all existing locomotive drivers at Connolly number 1 & 2 with aspirations to become DART drivers will be accommodated in the normal way. Fairview and Bray, as a result will become self contained depots".
The "Blue Book" proposals were rejected by the Union side and the issues in dispute were referred to the Labour Court. The Court having considered the matter recommended that the proposals in the "Blue Book" as amended by LCR 14417 be accepted. In relation to direct recruitment to DART, the Court recommended:-
"The proposed recruitment of drivers direct into the DART has raised concerns that such might preclude applications for transfer from existing drivers from the depots from which that can occur under existing arrangements. The Court recommends that these existing arrangements continue in place and that the Company guarantee that its proposed direct recruitment scheme will not in any way interfere with existing drivers' rights."
In relation to the first issue in dispute the Company's position is that under the 1994 Rail Operatives Productivity Agreement and under an agreement reached in January, 1999, it is allowed to have open recruitment to DART driver positions. It argues that as the vast majority of locomotive drivers in Connolly sold their rights to DART driving jobs under the 1999 Agreement, there is no longer an inhibition to direct recruitment.
The Union's position is that a sub-committee established under the 1994 Agreement, to consider any implications in relation to recruitment of drivers for specific depots, did not carry out its work. It was the Unions' view that, the promotion and transfer arrangements needed to be looked at as a number of drivers in other locations, in particular Inchicore, had a desire to transfer to DART driving. It argues that no agreement is in place regarding the setting up of confined depots and that this would have serious implications for the seniority of DART drivers. In the circumstances it considers that the drivers concerned are entitled to the same lump-sum payment which was paid to drivers at Connolly number 1 and 2 depots.
In relation to the second issue the Unions are seeking substantial compensation as the proposed extension of DART services would require agreement to amend the 1984 agreement as the drivers on both DART links would be required to take on additional inter-depot working for which they would not be paid expenses. The Company argues that the proposed extension is a natural development of commuter services and will have no detrimental effect on DART drivers' earnings.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of June, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of June, 1999. A recommendation in relation to the training of newly recruited drivers was issued by letter on the 28th of June, 1999.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS
3. 1. Direct recruitment to DART driving would have a profound effect on existing DART drivers. This will not be accepted without significant monetary compensation.
2. The workers are seeking £11,000 compensation per driver in line with that paid to drivers at Connolly number 1 and 2 depots.
3. The 1984 Agreement for the operation of the DART service set out to protect the rights of drivers. The Labour Court in LCR 14417 also recognised the rights of the drivers as did the Company in the "Blue Book" proposals of 1994.
4. Drivers outside of Connolly should be given a once off option to apply for DART driving.
5. Drivers will lose their traditional depot status if Fairview and Bray become self contained depots. The Unions are seeking that the Court upholds the drivers' rights to apply for vacancies in Connolly number 1 & 2 in accordance with their respective depots prior to their transfer to DART driving.
6. The sub-committee set-up to look at the promotion and transfer arrangements never completed its work. Only three meetings were convened and the promotion and transfer arrangements were never amended as required under 1994 Productivity Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Company has formal agreement from the Trade Unions in relation to "Direct DART Recruitment" and gives effect to proposals included in the 1994 Productivity Agreement. The details are set out in the Company's letter of the 15th of January, 1999, (details supplied). From the date of acceptance of the proposals, Fairview and Bray became separate depots. Transfer from these depots to any other depot is covered by existing agreements in relation to promotion and transfer of locomotive drivers.
2. The significance of "Direct DART Recruitment" is that a DART Specific Training Programme can now be put in place with a total training period of 16 weeks as opposed to conventional training of 72 weeks.
3. In regard to the question of DART drivers who ultimately transfer back into Connolly in the event of the amalgamation of Connolly 1 & 2, it is possible, with the Trade Unions' agreement, to establish seniority on the basis of seniority existing before the amalgamation. However, the Court should be aware that seniority may not be the only issue at play here.
The Company has proposed the amalgamation of Connolly 1 and 2 in its Change Process Talks facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission and in this respect has offered an incentive to the drivers in Connolly to amalgamate. Accordingly, it appears that DART drivers may be using the amalgamation issue ostensibly in regard to the question of seniority but purposely to obtain special consideration in line with the incentive offered to Connolly drivers.
4. There are significant implications in any concession by way of compensation payment or remuneration adjustment for the proposed extension to DART services.
5. A significant investment has been made in the Infrastructure and in regard to rolling stock in order to extend public service transport by way of DART extension to the communities involved.
6. Resistance to the commencement of DART specific driver training as a mechanism to obtain special payments is both unreasonable and unacceptable. Driver training itself would have no effect on existing DART drivers. The Company has stated that any change in regard to DART drivers' rosters or links brought about by extended services will be processed through agreed procedures.
7. The new proposals in relation to the extended services pose no threat to the earnings level of DART drivers.
8. The Court is requested to confirm the Company's agreement for "Direct Recruitment" and is requested to issue an interim recommendation solely in respect of the commencement of training and to reject the claims for compensation payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties in this case. The dispute has raised a number of complex and inter-related issues affecting the future operation of the DART system. The Court considers that it is in the interests of the workers concerned, the Company and the travelling public that all outstanding issues be finally resolved so as to facilitate the extension and improvement of this service. This recommendation should, therefore, be regarded as a composite response to all issues currently before the Court.
The Court accepts that agreement was reached between the parties on direct recruitment to the DART service. That agreement should be acknowledged and implemented. The Court also takes the view that the change in status of Bray and Fairview from that of confined link to confined depots, together with the affect of the planned extended services, will impact significantly on staff and that this impact has not been sufficiently acknowledged.
Having regard to the significance and unique nature of these changes the Court recommends that the Company pay an ex-gratia lump sum of £8,000 to each DART driver serving at the date of this recommendation.
This payment should be in full and final settlement of all issues before the Court in this referral. It should be regarded as without prejudice or precedent and accordingly does not establish any right or entitlement in respect of drivers outside of the DART system.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd August, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.