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 Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay for change proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. For a number of years, the parties have been involved in discussion on significant changes affecting all grades in the employment. These discussions are being progressed on a category by category basis. Following a series of meetings in recent times concerning the grade of signalspersons, the Company put forward a document "A New Framework For staff Development and Work Arrangements For Signalspersons", which the Unions were prepared to put to their members for consideration if the pay proposals were agreed.
The signalspersons have, over the years, worked very high levels of overtime with consequent high earnings. Their hours were rostered over seven days. The intention behind the Company's proposals is to introduce composite hours contracts with liabilities up to 48 hours maximum. The Unions' objective is to achieve these contracts without the signalspersons sustaining a loss of earnings. The Unions' claim and Company's offer are detailed as follows:
Unions' Claim Company's Offer
| Class 1 | Signalsperson - | £27,800 |
|
| Class 2 | Signalsperson | £26,410 | £22,600 |
| Class 3 | Signalsperson | £25,087 | £20,900 |
The Company proposes a six year pay scale for all new entrants to the signalspersons grade. Those presently appointed signalspersons would go to the top point of the scale. The Unions rejected the Company's offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in April, May and June, 2000, at which no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th of July, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd August, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' pay claim is based on present average earnings resulting from high levels of overtime and seven day working. The signalspersons were obliged to work long hours over the years to achieve these earnings, and have financial commitments, mortgages and other expenses based on those earnings. They cannot accept reduced earnings as per the Company's offer.
2. The Unions are totally opposed to the six year pay scale. Different rates of pay cause disharmony and friction amongst workers.
3. The changes required by the Company include a huge productivity element which will see signalspersons performing duties that are presently carried out by other workers i.e. station duties. The changes in work practices and resulting efficiencies contained in the signalspersons proposals are no less, and arguably more than those agreed for locomotive drivers whose pay deal maintained their average earnings, and was accepted by all parties as a benchmark for negotiations with the other grades. However, the pay offer to signalspersons falls far short of the average earnings. The signalspersons are entitled to no less consideration in their pay deal than that received by their colleagues in the driving grade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not accept the Unions' claim that the earnings of signalsperson should be preserved at the average gross earnings level in the year preceding change, as regular 7 day working will be replaced by a guaranteed 5 day working week and average hours per week will reduce from 60 to 48. A stable income and enhanced related pensions is guaranteed for signalspersons.
2. Any straight line relativity with other grades would be inappropriate and have significant consequences for negotiations with other groups involved in the wider change programme in Iarnrod Eireann and any future bargaining where the need for change arises with a particular grade or grades.
3. Signalspersons, in particular, have limited potential for change because of the nature of their role.
4. Any "attachment" to gross earnings previously obtained, while taking full account of the specific circumstances which generated such earnings, would be a false measure of the pay proposals now on offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions' claim in this case is substantially based on the pay structure agreed with another grade in the current round of negotiations on restructuring throughout the Company.
In Recommendation No. LCR16593 in relation to DART drivers, the Court made the following observation in relation to the process of negotiation agreed between the parties:
- 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.
The Court reiterates that view in relation to the present dispute.
The Court cannot recommend an improvement in the Company's offer on the merits of the case as presented. It notes, however, that Unions stated position is that the Company's offer on pay is unacceptable. They have also stated that their counter proposal is non-negotiable. In these circumstances a recommendation by the Court to the effect that the Company's offer be accepted would be an exercise in futility.
The Court recommends that the parties should resume negotiations with a view to identifying additional real and tangible productivity/flexibility measures which could be conceded by Signalpersons and on which a revised pay offer could be based. In the event of this not being possible, the parties may have to acknowledge the reality that agreement on restructuring the Signalperson Grade is not practicable at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th August, 2000______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.