FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of traffic supervisors for retrospective application of pay agreements agreed in "A New Deal for Traffic Supervisors". The dispute was the subject of two Conciliation Conferences on the 24th of April, 2001, and the 30th of April, 2001, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Both parties agreed to new and improved pay scales.
The Labour Relations Commission proposal provided for "retrospection" to be referred jointly to the Labour Court. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th of May, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new deal for drivers could not have gone ahead without the co-operation of the supervisors.
2. A supervisor must be present and must witness the signing on of drivers to ensure that the drivers actually sign on themselves, that they are in a fit condition to take up duty as train drivers and to advise drivers of any changes that might result on the line . 3. When the loco-supervisor or station masters go off duty the station inspectors were required to directly supervise drivers and no driver can sign on duty without being directly supervised by a supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traffic supervisors were not and are not directly involved in the rostering and management of locomotive drivers as a general rule. 2. As traffic supervisors are not generally involved in the supervision/management of drivers, the implementation of the locomotive drivers agreement is not relevant to the traffic supervisors new pay arrangements. 3. The staff directly supervised and managed by the traffic supervisors have not yet reached agreement on change, Labour Court Recommendations are currently subject to ballot.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and the relevant correspondence supplied.
There is a major difference of opinion between the parties in relation to the extent of the involvement of this group in the implementation of the Locomotive Drivers agreement.
The Management argue that there is little if any effect on the claimants as a result of the implementation of the Drivers agreement.
The claimants are adamant that the agreement directly affects their role.
It would appear from discussions in the Court that the Running Supervisors succeeded in having their date of implementation brought forward, when they indicated their unwillingness to co-operate with the Drivers Deal.
It was accepted by the Company that the claimants would normally negotiate as part of the wider Supervisory Group and would in those circumstances more than likely have been given the same date for implementation.
While conscious of the Company arguments that the Union chose to have separate negotiation and that this reflected the differences between the groups, the Court does not believe sufficient grounds exist for breaking with the normal arrangements that would have applied had they negotiated together.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company apply the same date of implementation in June 2000 to this group.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th November, 2001______________________
HMCD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.