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: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. "A new deal for DART drivers".
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to proposals made by the Company, "A new deal for DART drivers", which were rejected by the Unions. The issues in dispute are as follows:
(1) At present, DART drivers work a 5 over 6 day week, with Sunday as a rest/overtime day. The Company has proposed that DART drivers work a 48 hour, 5 over 7 day week, similar to inter-city train drivers. The DART drivers are seeking compensation for the proposed change, plus one week's additional annual leave.
(2) Since 1984, DART drivers work a 100% one-person-operation (OPO), and enjoy a bonus for every hour worked. Average earnings for DART drivers are £31,000 per annum as against £27,500 for inter-city drivers. The Company has proposed guaranteed earnings of £29,500 for the DART drivers, the same as that offered to the inter-city drivers. The Unions want to maintain the differential.
(3) The Company has proposed that new recruits to the DART would enter at the bottom of a 6 year incremental scale and, on reaching the top of the scale, would receive 80% of the present DART drivers' pay. The Unions are seeking that all DART drivers receive the same rate of pay.
(4) The Company presently operates a self-certification-of-illness scheme which allows 7 days to be self-certified in any one year, but excludes Mondays and Saturdays. With the proposed 5 over 7 day week, the Unions are seeking that self-certification should apply to any day in the 5 day week.
(5) The Unions are seeking a facility for voluntary severance, particularly in relation to senior drivers.
The dispute was initially referred to the Labour Relations Commission more than 2 years ago. Following rejection of the Company's proposals in April, 2000, and failure to reach agreement at a final conciliation conference on the 19th of April, 2000, it was agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the 20th of April, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of June, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The drivers do not want to change from their present 5 over 6 day week, as the proposed change is of no benefit to them. Drivers are presently paid double time if they work on Sunday. Under the Company's proposals, drivers will receive no additional payment for Sunday work. In the Maintenance Department, which operates a 5 over 7 day week, one extra week's holiday leave is granted. DART drivers should receive the same leave if they have to change their working week.
2. Inter-city drivers work an average of 75% one-person-operations against the DART drivers 100%, which is unique to them. The differential, at present £3,500 per year, should be maintained.
3. The Company's proposals for a 6-year scale for new entrants will cause major unrest, as has happened in the past when drivers had different rates of pay. Staff should be paid the same wage for performing the same work.
4. The Company's proposed change in work practices will not suit all drivers, particularly senior drivers who would find it very difficult to accept. A facility for voluntary severance must be part of any deal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Company's proposals were intended to (a) reduce the average hours of work, (b) reduce any conflict surrounding competition for hours of duty attracting premium pay, (c) create regular and guaranteed 5 day working weeks, (d) include Sunday as part of the standard 5 day week and (e) introduce guaranteed earnings of £29,500 per annum for existing DART drivers.
2. Since 1984, the number of passengers has grown from 36,000 daily to over 80,000 daily. The objective of the proposals is to improve the position of the staff, and also to strengthen the reliability of service to the customers. Additional drivers are being trained to cope with the continuing growth in demand.
3. The DART drivers' claims are excessive and unsustainable in terms of cost. Any additional payments given to the DART drivers would undermine the recently agreed New Deal for Locomotive Drivers (DART drivers have a 16-week training programme, whereas inter-city/locomotive drivers can spend up to 72 weeks in training).
RECOMMENDATION:
Observations of the Court
This dispute came before the Court against the background of a major change programme aimed at reorganising the service provided by Iarnrod Eireann. Negotiations on this change programme have been conducted, by agreement between the parties, on a category-by-category basis. This has resulted in the emergence of 34 separate negotiating units dealing with issues which are broadly similar in terms of their impact on staff. The decision making process has been similarly fragmented.
A significant measure of agreement has been reached in implementing this change programme. It has not, however, been without difficulty. Negotiations have been protracted, and involved a considerable input by the Labour Relations Commission and a number of references to the Court. A recurring feature of the disputes which came before the Court involved comparison with certain aspects of the settlements reached with other groups based on previous relativities or differentials. The present dispute comes within that category.
While the Court understands the weight which workers attach to relativities and differentials, such considerations lack validity where the agreed process of negotiation involves treating each grade or category as an autonomous unit for bargaining and decision-making purposes. That approach can only succeed if the decisive consideration is the degree and impact of change expected of each category considered in isolation to the outcome of negotiations with other autonomous groups.
In relation to the present dispute, both parties based their arguments on the outcome of negotiations for mainline train drivers. The Unions contend that DART drivers traditionally held a differential over mainline drivers, and that this should be reflected within the new arrangement. For its part, the Company contends that any concession made to DART drivers, beyond that on offer, would result in repercussive claims from others who have completed their negotiations, with the result that concluded agreements would unravel. On that point, the Court accepts that there is a basis for the Company's concern, based on past experience.
Agreement has already been reached on important aspects of change affecting the DART service. Following Recommendation LCR16218, and further protracted negotiations between the parties, an agreement was concluded to provide for the extension of the service to Greystones and Malahide, the recruitment of new drivers, and the co-operation with the introduction of new rolling stock. That agreement is unaffected by the present dispute.
In the present case, the Court notes that the final proposals now in dispute emerged from extensive negotiations between the parties conducted directly and through the Labour Relations Commission. They appear to have been accepted as the best available from that process. Nonetheless, they were unanimously rejected in a ballot of the drivers concerned.
In the Court's view that situation could only be reversed by altering the current proposals to a significant degree. Such an alteration would not be justified on the merits of the case. Moreover, any further concessions could destabilise existing agreements.
In these circumstances, it appears to the Court that the position in which the parties find themselves makes it unlikely that agreement can be reached at this time on the changes which the Company requires. While the changes proposed would bring advantages to the travelling public, the Company, and to the employees in terms of enhanced terms and conditions of employment, their implementation is by no means crucial to the continued operation of an adequate service. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the best option for all concerned is to acknowledge that agreement on the current proposals on restructuring work organisation of DART drivers is not possible, and that they should not proceed at this time.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the parties continue to operate within their current arrangement unless and until a new agreement can be negotiated, and in that regard they should keep the situation under review.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th August, 2000______________________
C.O'N./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.