FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for introduction of new transport system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company proposes to introduce "double rake" system of transport at the Blackwater works. The system essentially means that the two drivers each haul a series of wagons (rakes) simultaneously to a designated loading point. They in turn load peat into each rake of wagons and return with the full load to the ESB station or Bord na Mona briquette factory. The current system involves a dedicated loader driver awaiting at the loading point to load drivers on arrival. The loader driver loads the two rakes and then travels back to the station with one of the loco drivers.
The Union is claiming compensation in respect of workers involved in the proposed transport changes. The Union maintains that the introduction of a double rake system for the transport of peat from the bog to the power station as per the Company proposal will have detrimental implications on the bonus scheme due to time lost waiting for wagons (delays as each run will require two wagons and operators must wait until these return). The Union maintains that the operators will be required to start work earlier to ensure the same workload. The system would also have detrimental effects on the shift premium currently paid in the Company. The Union also seeks guarantees on start time, supply of wagons, retention of shift, phase in process, rerailer and discussions on gain-sharing. The Company rejected the claim stating that an agreement for the introduction of the new transport system was reached as far back as 1974, and that the system was already in operation at other works.
Local negotiations in 1997, 1998 and 1999 failed to resolve the issue, and in April, 1999, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in May and June, 1999. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of July, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Tullamore, on the 24th of February, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers at the Blackwater Works have resisted the introduction of the new system principally because of the impact on jobs and also because of the logistics of the operation and subsequent impact on earnings. The Company has shed over 2,000 jobs in the last decade; yet it is still one of the principal employers in the area. For workers to come from the principled position of attempting to safeguard jobs to accepting the proposal of the double rake system is a major step. The Company is profitable and the economic circumstances under which workers accepted radical change in the early nineties have now been totally transformed. Workers must be compensated for the proposed change. They need to have the following issues addressed before they could consider the introduction of the new transport system:
(i) Starting Times: Assurances that starting times will remain as at present and will not change unless prior agreement with the Union.
(ii) Guarantee Supply of Wagons: The Union has mentioned previously the concerns regarding logistics. Whilst the proposed Bonus System (details to the Court) looks reasonable it does not adequately reflect the amount of time that drivers will have to spend waiting for empty wagons.
(iii) Gainsharing: The Company has steadfastly refused to engage with the Union on this subject. The Union's request is straightforward. The annual saving accruing to the Company on the implementation of this system is £150,000 per annum. The Union request that 50% be given to the workers affected by change on a once off basis. The Company have used many arguments in rejecting this request. It says that the lump sums have not been paid in the other works. It claims that the bonus scheme offers adequate award for change. The Union's argument is simple, each works has done its own deal. The Union will not look for the gainshare to be applied in any of the other works. Secondly, because of the economic fortunes of the Company, Management should be more generous in sharing the profits that accrue from change.
(iv) Phase in Process: The Union would request that present vacancies on transport be filled before the phase in process begins on the basis of the February document which provides for 28 permanent operatives.
(v) Retention of Shift: The Union seeks that all operations associated with transport have a fall back rate of shift rate.
(vi) Rerailer: The Union requests that two workers be employed on a rerailer, one on either shift, in order to reduce downtime associated with de-railments. The Union also requests the immediate commissioning of the rail maintenance machine.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current system has inherent inefficiencies in the utilisation of working time of the loader driver who for a considerable period of any day is essentially waiting at a loading point for the arrival of a rake of wagons.
2. A 1974 Agreement provides for the introduction of these double rake systems at works locations. The agreement provided that where such systems were introduced the workers involved would be re-designated to the highest machine drive rate. In present day terms the higher designation has an additional wages value of circa £700 p.a. per employee. In the case of the Blackwater works all the designated transport workers were given the higher rate in April, 1988. The 1974 Agreement has been recognised and accepted by the Union as giving Management the right to introduce these systems at all works. This Agreement paved the way for discussions at local level which resulted in the introduction of the new system at all other works with the exception of Blackwater.
3. Major changes in work practices have been agreed with the Unions over the years which have improved efficiency and cost effectiveness. These changes are essential to respond to major commercial and competitive pressures facing the Company. Any decisions to build further peat fired stations will only be on the basis that these stations embrace the best of new technology and that the Company, through the use of new and approved technology, aligned to cost-efficient work systems can deliver peat on a competitive basis viz. a viz. other fuels.
4. The Company is prepared to address the issues relating to starting time, supply of wagons, gainsharing, phase in process and shift retention.
5. Management cannot accept a situation where a refusal by a small group of workers to accept the type of change already embraced by workers at other locations can in any way endanger the viability of its operations and the continuity of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for specific assurances and conditions to be given in return for the introduction of a Double Rake Transport System. The Court recommends that the following assurances and conditions should apply and that the new transport system should commence with immediate effect:-
Starting Times
In the event of a proposal to formally change starting times, the Court recommends that such changes must only be introduced when agreement has been reached with the employees concerned.
Guarantee Supply of Wagons
Unless there is an adequate supply of wagons the system cannot operate effectively. The Court recommends that the Company should ensure that at all times there is an adequate supply.
Gainsharing
The Court notes that discussions on a gainsharing scheme on a company-wide basis have already commenced. However, the Court does not recommend the payment of a once-off lump sum in this case.
Phase in Process
On acceptance of this recommendation, the Court recommends that the Company should revert to a complement of 28 permanent operatives and then phase in.
Retention of Shift
The Court recommends that the shift rate should be retained for a period of two years. The company has indicated to the Court that within the two year period, the new station will be operational.
Rerailer
The Court recommends that this situation should be monitored over a period of one year, to ascertain whether the present method of dealing with derailments, has an impact on earnings.
Rail Maintenance Machine
The Company indicated to the Court that this machine was almost ready and gave an assurance that it would be in operation in two months. The Court recommends that every effort should be made by the company to abide by that assurance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th March, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.