FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NBRU ICTU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. 1. Compensation for loss of earnings.
2. Pension.
BACKGROUND:
2. Negotiations have been taking place for the past two and a half years between the Company and the Unions regarding proposals for new work arrangements for staff in the Company.
The dispute before the Court concerns two issues for locomotive drivers:-
1. Compensation for loss of earnings
2. Pension.
Compensation for loss of earnings
In order to compensate drivers who suffer a loss of earnings as a result of the new work arrangements the Company made the following offer:
The first £3,200 at 2½times annual loss equal to £8,000
The next £2,000 at twice the annual loss equal to £4,000
The balance at once the annual loss subject to a ceiling of £16,000.
This offer was rejected by the Unions who are seeking 2½ times annual loss with no ceiling.
Pension
The Company proposals for locomotive drivers from May 1999 was for a composite rate of pay of £23,380 per year. The Unions want the new basic rate of pay to be reflected in the Pension Scheme. There is currently a ceiling of £17,429 for the purposes of calculating pension which the Company claims cannot be altered because of its statutory nature.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on various dates. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of October,1999 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of October, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Compensation for loss of earnings
3. 1. Many workers will suffer severe loss of earnings as a result of the implementation of the new work arrangements.
2. The offer made by the Company of the first £3,200 at 2½ times annual loss, the next £2,000 at twice the annual loss and the balance at once the annual loss subject to a ceiling of £16,000 is not adequate. The Unions are seeking 2½ times annual loss with no ceiling.
Pension
3. The Company proposals for locomotive drivers from May, 1999 was for a composite rate of pay of £23,380 per year. This new basic rate would not be reflected in the pension scheme. The Company proposes a ceiling of £17,429 to calculate pension. This is not acceptable to the Unions.
4. The pension scheme should reflect on the new 39 hour basic rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Compensation for loss of earnings
4. 1. The offer made is both adequate and reasonable.
2. If an exceptional case should arise where the offer is not adequate then this case will be dealt with.
Pension
3. Any change to the pension scheme would require Ministerial approval and the issuing of a statutory instrument.
4. Any change in the Company's position on pensionable pay would have high cost implications and a knock-on effect within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submission of the parties and recommends as follows:-
Compensation for loss of earnings
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be amended so as to provide the following formula:
- First £3,200 x 2.5 times annual loss
Next £4,000 x 2 times annual loss
Remainder at once annual loss
The maximum amount payable should be adjusted to £20,000. This formula is specific to this case and should have no precedent value.
Pensions
All parties to this dispute have emphasised to the Court that the pay structure proposed is not an annualised hours arrangement.
While certain provisions normally found in annualised hours agreements, such as reserved or banked hours, are absent from the proposed pay structure, its dominant feature is the introduction of a fixed salary in return for a defined attendance liability in excess of basic hours.
To that extent, the proposed structure can be equated with an annualised hours agreement. Such agreements normally reflect the composite salary in pensionable pay.
Given the striking similarities between the proposed arrangements and a normal annualised hours agreement, the Court recommends that the proposed composite rate, adjusted to reflect a 39 hour week, should be reflected in pensionable pay. The parties should enter immediate discussions on the detailed arrangements necessary to give effect to this recommendation, including the statutory implications if any.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th November, 1999.______________________
GB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.