FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay parity with dart drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions have submitted a claim on behalf of Inter City Locomotive Drivers for pay parity with Dart Drivers.
The Unions argue that, while both sets of drivers concluded agreements, Dart Drivers are paid 48 hours pay for a maximum of 43 hours work (41 hours rostered). The Unions state that mainline drivers must work 48 hours (46 hours rostered) in order to receive 48 hours pay. Where they work an average of 43 hours, those drivers do not receive 48 hours pay.
Management rejects the Unions' claim. It argues that the Unions should abide by the terms of the agreements already reached.
As no agreement was possible between parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 29th February, 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th February, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th April, 2001and on the 23rd May, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Intercity locomotive drivers should enjoy the same benefits as that granted to the D.A.R.T. drivers.
2. The Company has created an anomaly when it agreed a better pay deal for D.A.R.T drivers than that agreed for mainline drivers.
3. Management gave assurances that D.A.R.T. drivers would not secure any better benefits against the deal agreed with the intercity drivers.
4. Intercity drivers require a training period of 72 weeks compared to 18 weeks for D.A.R.T. drivers. Also, these drivers require an extensive knowledge over all the lines on which they operate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January, 2000, the Unions concluded an agreement ("New Deal") on behalf of locomotive drivers and this should be adhered to.
2. The "New Deal" for locomotive drivers represents an agreed balance between greater flexibility/productivity, shorter working hours and working weeks, with significant increases in earnings compared to that under the previous agreement.
3. The rostering arrangements agreed as part of the "New Deal" covering locomotive drivers, are being compared with rostering arrangements applicable under a separate, but similar agreement for D.A.R.T. drivers.
4. Any concession of this claim would lead to repercussive claims from other groups of workers within the company.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this claim the Unions are seeking significant changes in the terms of the New Deal for Locomotive Drivers agreement which was concluded between the parties in January 2000 following three years of negotiations. It is but one in a series of similar agreements negotiated and agreed with various groups and categories as part of an overall restructuring programme.
For the purpose of these negotiations the parties agreed to constitute each group or category as autonomous negotiating units and to conclude separate agreements with each unit. In adopting this approach the parties must have known and accepted that differences could and would emerge in the final detail of the various agreements.
In the case of DART drivers the agreement reached was on the understanding that its terms would have no precedent value and would not be used to advance claims for any other group. It cannot, on this ground alone, be relied upon in support of the present claim. Moreover, the agreement to which the group associated with this claim are party is not formally qualified by, or conditional on, the outcome of negotiations with any other group.
The Court is firmly of the view that the parties must honour and implement the terms agreed between them in the New Deal for Locomotive Drivers agreement. For that reason the Court does not recommend concession of the present claim.
The Court notes that the agreement itself provides a monitoring mechanism within which the operation of the agreement can be reviewed. In the context of full implementation of all aspects of the agreement, the current contract hours arrangements could be reviewed within this monitoring process. The Court recommends that not earlier than January 2002 the parties should utilise the monitoring process to examine the present contract hours arrangements against the then current and projected operational requirements of the Company. Such adjustments, if any, as are possible within those requirements should then be identified.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th July, 2001______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.