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 Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Lump sum payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a claim for a lump sum payment of £11,000 for each employee working on the " Overhead Line Equipment" (O.H.L.E.). The claim is in respect of the Company's proposal to extend the Dart services from Bray to Greystones and from Howth Junction to Malahide.
The Union states that the work of the O.H.L.E. crew is to service the overhead cables and other overhead equipment. It is a highly technical operation and requires great skill. The cables carry very high voltage current which the crew must ensure is isolated before any work can commence.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it is in response to a payment made to Dart drivers arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR16218. It states that there is no basis for this claim and that the award to Dart drivers under LCR16218 was given without "prejudice or precedent".
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 18th November, 1999 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th November, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 11th February, 2000 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a lump sum payment for its members (5) in relation to the extension of the Dart service to Malahide and Greystones.
2. The extension of the Dart service will add to the responsibilities for its members. The workers concerned will be required to learn new skills in relation to the operation of the new extension.
3. The workers concerned will have to operate in a more dangerous working environment as they will be required to work in tunnels between Bray and Greystones. Also, they will be required to train any new staff taken on as a result of the new extension.
4. The Company has made an offer to other sections of the Company in relation to the new extension but have refused to make any offer to this group of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The extension of the Dart service will not result in an increased workload for the staff concerned. The Company will recruit extra staff to deal with the extra work involved.
2. There is no basis for this claim. The workers concerned are simply seeking the same award which was given to Dart drivers under LCR16218.
3. The Labour Court issued its recommendation - LCR16218 - in relation to the Dart drivers. The award was to be regarded as without "prejudice or precedent" and not providing a basis for consequential claims for any other group of workers.
4. The Company has increased the pay rates for this group of workers by 5% in 1999 in return for more flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions in this case the Court has reached the conclusion that any substantive recommendation which it could justifiably make on the claim referred, could not advance the resolution of the dispute.
In reaching this conclusion the Court has been influenced by the following considerations:
1. The factors relied upon by the Union could not, by any standard, support concession of the claim as put forward.
2. At conciliation and again at the Court hearing there was no indication that the Union would be prepared to modify its stated position. In response, the Company has not been prepared to acknowledge any merit in the claim or make any offer.
3. It appears to the Court that the underlying basis for the claim is the recent settlement in respect of Dart drivers, which was expressly agreed as being without precedent and as not providing a basis for consequential claims for any other group.
4. The present claim is but one of a number of similar claims being pursued by different groups, which are at varying stages of negotiation.
5. The recent industrial relation history within the Company indicates a pattern whereby Labour Court Recommendations are treated as the penultimate stage in the process, and that the ultimate settlement of disputes is arrived at through negotiations after the Court's Recommendation has been rejected.
The Court believes that the present reference is premature. It recommends that the parties enter into meaningful negotiations on the claim, either directly or at conciliation before the assistance of the Court is sought. Those negotiations should be in parallel with and have regard to the other related claims being pursued by the Union. Any further reference to the Court should be on the basis that its Recommendation will be the final stage in the negotiating process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd February, 2000.______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.