FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment to crossing keepers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In Labour Court Recommendation LCR16211, which issued on the 21st of June, 1999, the Court recommended a review of the work of the Crossing Keeper. The dispute now before the Court relates to a Company decision to deduct 12 hours pay from each Crossing Keeper employed prior to an interim 1999 agreement. The Union claims that some Crossing Keepers work a 12 hour day, Monday to Friday while others work 12 hours per day Monday to Saturday. Sunday is paid at double time. It states that agreement was reached in 1999 with the Company following the re-structuring of the working and pay arrangements for these workers. The agreement provided for a day off each week for Crossing Keepers. Where it was not possible for these workers to take their day off, he/she received an extra 12 hours pay for that day. The Union claims, however, that those changing to a five day week i.e. Monday to Friday will lose 24 hours pay.
The Company states that it was an interim agreement and that it is now entitled to stop this extra payment from these workers where cover has been provided and where they have taken their day off.
The Union rejects the Company's proposal to stop 12 hours pay on its members.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Several conciliation conferences took place between the 31st of July, 2000, and the 31st of August, 2001, but final no agreement was reached.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of November, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union cannot accept the Company's proposal to deduct 12 hours pay from its members.
2. The workers concerned are treated much less favourably than any other group of employees in the Company.
3. The Company have paid only the bare minimum hourly rate to the staff concerned.
4. These workers perform a very difficult and sometimes dangerous job on behalf of the Company. Trains could not operate without these workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since June, 1999, the number of Crossing Keepers employed by the Company has increased substantially. There is no need now for these workers to work their day off.
2. The agreement to pay an extra 12 hours pay to these workers was an interim one and it should now cease as the relief necessary to afford them a day off is now in place.
3. The Court is asked to recommend that only actual hours worked should be paid for.
RECOMMENDATION:
In Recommendation LCR16211 (21st June, 1999) the Court pointed to the need for a comprehensive review of all aspects of the post of Crossing Keeper. In particular, the Court identified a need to examine the feasibility of limiting the times during which this group of workers are obliged to remain available to the Company.
In the Court's view, there is now a greater necessity to conduct such a review. The number of hours during which crossing keepers are currently contracted to remain available for work is clearly not sustainable into the future, particularly in view of the impending extension of statutory limits on working time to the transport sector.
In the Court's view, it will be necessary to bring the contract hours of this group into line with those which have resulted from the recent reorganisation of work arrangements of other groups. In consequence of any such change, it will also be necessary to fundamentally restructure the current remuneration arrangements for the group. The Court recommends that the parties commence the process of restructuring this grade having regard to those considerations. This process should be completed by the end of September, 2002.
With regard to the cessation of the interim payment, cogent arguments have been advanced by both sides. The Court notes that the agreement concluded between the parties in 1999, following the rejection of LCR16211, provided for a payment equivalent to an extra day's pay where a rest day was not provided. In the Court's view, it is perfectly reasonable for the Company to discontinue this payment where an employee is afforded a rest day and this is not contested by the Union. However, the agreement did not make it clear that the reduction in the number of weekly working days, following the provision of rest days, would result in the loss of an additional days pay.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that those employed as crossing keepers at the time of the 1999 agreement, on a fixed weekly wage, should retain this second 12 hour payment on a strictly personal-to-holder basis until the completion of the restructuring of the grade recommended above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th November, 2001______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.