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 Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 148 resident and 166 non-resident crossing keepers to man the rail crossings throughout the country. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of these workers for an improvement in pay and conditions of employment.
The Union is seeking:-
(1) A minimum wage of £4.40 per hour.
(2) A maximum of 12 hours working per day.
(3) Hours of work to be displayed on pay packets.
(4) One day off per week to be taken Monday to Saturday inclusive.
(5) Marking system should be abolished.
(6) Existing staff should be allowed enter the welfare scheme without a medical on a once off basis.
No progress was made on the above claims at local level as the Company states that the claims are cost increasing.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 1st of December, 1998 and on the 27th of January, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A minimum wage of £4.40 per hour
The present rates of pay for crossing keepers can be as low as £1.25 per hour and up to a maximum of £2.85 per hour.
2. A maximum of 12 hours working per day
At present resident crossing keepers work 24 hours per day.
3. Hours of work to be displayed on pay packets
The Company promised to display hours of work on workers' pay packets but have failed to do so.
4. One day off per week to be taken Monday to Saturday inclusive
It is unacceptable that the workers concerned should work 6 and 7 days per week without a day off. The Company gave an undertaking to investigate this issue and report back. To the Union's knowledge no investigation has been carried out.
5. That on a once off basis existing staff be allowed enter the welfare scheme without a medical
A number of staff within the Company do not wish to attend for a medical and are, therefore, not accepted into the medical scheme.
6. Marking system should be abolished
This system is used to determine the rates of pay of staff. It is an outdated system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A minimum wage of £4.40 per hour
To pay £4.40 per hour to each worker would have huge cost implications.
2. A maximum of 12 hours working per day
To reduce the daily hours of the workers would cost the Company approximately £700,000 per year.
3. Hours of work to be displayed on pay packets
The staff are not hourly paid. They have a unique role, they are unlike any other worker employed by the Company.
4. One day off per week to be taken Monday to Saturday inclusive
This would be cost increasing to the Company as approximately 63 additional staff would be required to provide cover.
5. That on a once off basis existing staff be allowed enter the welfare scheme without a medical
Entry to the welfare scheme requires a medical. The Chief Medical Officer has advised that due to the age of some staff, all must attend for a medical.
6. Marking system should be abolished
This system was agreed with the Union and implemented in 1981. It is an important system and should not be changed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The duties attaching to the post of resident/non-resident crossing keeper, and the pattern of availability required of those occupying the posts, makes it practically impossible to identify any analogous position either within the Company or elsewhere with which fair comparison could be drawn for the purpose of determining pay and conditions of employment.
The Court accepts that on a straight comparison with normal standards the conditions of employment of this grade do appear to be out of line. However, the unique nature of the job is such that to simply apply the conditions claimed by the Union, without any other changes, would create a significant anomaly in earnings potential relative to other grades within the Company. It would also place an impossible cost burden on the Company given its present financial circumstances.
There is, nonetheless, a need for a comprehensive review of all aspects of the posts in question. Such a review should examine the feasibility of limiting the times during which crossing keepers are obliged to remain available to the Company. The marking system and pay scales which it provides should also be reviewed to reflect the differences in traffic volume between locations and the different attendance patterns required. The Court recommends that the parties should establish a joint working party to carry out such a review, with the assistance of an agreed facilitator/chairperson. This working party should report by March, 2000.
In the interim and pending the outcome of the review, the Union should accept the proposals put forward by the Company at conciliation. In addition, the Company should undertake to complete a program of bringing all accommodation available to both resident and non-resident crossing keepers up to an acceptable standard not later than June, 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st June, 1999______________________
G.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.