FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for the introduction of new agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 30/33 senior depotpersons for a payment of £300.00 each in compensation for the introduction of a new ticket issuing system.
The new system is called Crouzet and replaces a more manual type system. Co-operation with the new system was agreed as part of a major productivity agreement in 1994, the "Green Book" (LCR14417 refers). Following the introduction of the new ticket issuing system and Labour Court Recommendation LCR14709 the Court recommended an ex-gratia payment of £300.00 per person for workers involved in the initial introductory period in full and final settlement of the claim
The Union is now seeking a similar payment for staff involved in the smaller provincial locations where the new ticketing system is being introduced.
The Company rejects the claim and states that the new equipment is covered under the "Blue Book" which details the 1994 Rails Operative Productivity Agreement covering all Rail Operative grades in the Operations Department.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on various dates up to the 7th of January, 1999 but no agreement was reached.
The Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals to try and resolve the dispute but were rejected by the Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of August, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff concerned will suffer inconvenience as a result of the introduction of the new ticketing system.
2. The current staff should receive the same compensation as that paid to staff when the new system was first introduced.
3. The staff will not operate the new system until their claim for compensation is resolved.
4. The new system is not user friendly and will bring about greater stress and strain for the staff concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of this equipment was agreed in 1994 under the productivity agreement as set out in the "Blue Book".
2. The £300.00 awarded by the Court (LCR14709) refers to senior depotpersons involved in the initial introduction reflected the "teething" problems encountered at that time.
3. The system is no longer new and all "teething" problems have been resolved.
4. An examination by the Irish Productivity Centre found that the new equipment had no significant impact on the claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case. It is clear that the rail Operative Productivity Agreement of 1994 ("Blue Book Agreement"), specifically provided for the introduction and operation of the equipment now in dispute. It is also clear that the ex-gratia payment recommended by the Court in Recommendation LCR 14709 was in respect of the likely effects of technical problems associated with the initial introduction of the equipment. It appears to the Court that these technical problems should now have been largely overcome.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Crouzet equipment should be introduced on the terms recommended by the IRO. This proposal should, however, be modified so as to provide that if the type of difficulties referred to in that proposal are experienced over the first six months, any employee experiencing them should receive an ex-gratia payment of £150 at the end of that period. The appropriate mechanisms to monitor operations as set out by the IRO to be agreed by the time the equipment is introduced.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
August, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Kevin Duffy
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.