FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNR�D EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Re-structuring (Senior Depotpersons and Parcels Depotpersons).
BACKGROUND:
2. In March 1997, discussions were initiated by Iarnr�d Eireann Management with the Trade Unions, N.B.R.U. and S.I.P.T.U. for the purpose of agreeing a process to identify and agree changes in work practices for Rail Operative grade staff. The Company proposed that the Station/Depot structure would be rationalised from 15 into 4 designated grades.
There are 127 Senior Depotpersons employed in Intercity and Suburban Rail services. There are 14 Parcels Depotpersons who operate Fastrack services in 6 stations (Connolly, Cork, Heuston, Limerick, Galway and Waterford). The Company proposes to deploy these employees in the new grade of Station Operative Grade 2 at the following pay rates:-
39 hour contract £18,067 (22,940.36 Euro)
43 hour contract £19,920 (25,293.18 Euro)
45 hour contract £20,846 (26,468.96 Euro)
48 hour contract £22,236 (28,233.90 Euro)
The Unions are claiming the same rates of pay as those paid to Signalpersons Category 2 for the grades of Senior Depotpersons and Parcels Depotpersons . The following are the rates claimed:-
39 hour contract £21,601.13 (27,427.78 Euro)
43 hour contract £23,816.63 (30,240.88 Euro)
45 hour contract £24,924,38 (31,647.43 Euro)
48 hour contract £26,586.38 (33,757.74 Euro)
The parties were unable to reach agreement on pay rates and other issues such as the length of rest periods, the length of the working day, a proposed new 6 point incremental pay scale and other flexibilities. The issues were the subject of conciliation conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on several dates up to the 14th of June, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of July, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of August, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants carry out difficult and important roles and undertake a variety of responsible duties which include full responsibility for the running of the Stations/Depots. They work 7 days a week on a regular basis. The claimants have never been recognised by the Company for the contribution they have made.
2. Parcels Depotpersons and Senior Depotpersons served a claim for re-grading to Traffic Coordinator over a year ago. They did not receive any response from the Company. If the grade of Traffic Coordinator had been conceded, the claimants would be seeking the same pay rates as those enjoyed by Signal Persons Category 1.
3. The Company is proposing to reduce the rest period from 12 hours to 8 hours. The rest period should remain at 12 hours except for the purpose of changing turns at weekends when it may be necessary to have a shorter period.
4. The Company is proposing a minimum of a 5 hour working day and a maximum of 12 hours. The Unions' claim is for a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 10 hours. In addition, the proposed 2 rest days per week should be rotated to provide for long weekends at regular intervals.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposed Station/Depot grading structure is an appropriate rationalisation of the existing structure containing a multiplicity of grades giving rise to demarcation and restrictive work practice.
2. The introduction of a guaranteed five-day week rostered over seven days provides significant benefit to staff and creates a Sunday service guarantee.
3. The composite earnings packages and incremental scales proposed reflect the established and future work pattern/earnings pattern of the staff concerned.
4. Concession of the claim before the Court would give rise to a spiral of catch up claims and attendant conflict.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a claim made on behalf of 141 Senior Depotpersons and 14 Parcels Depotpersons. It is one of nine disputes, separately referred to the Court, arising from the work reorganisation programme initiated by the Company in 1997. As the issues arising in each of these cases are similar, and in some respects identical, the Court convened a serious of consecutive hearings to investigate each of them. The recommendations in each case have been formulated, having regard to the totality of the submissions made in the course of all of the hearings.
Pay.
In their submissions on behalf of the vast majority of those affected by the current series of claims, the Unions have argued that the composite rate payable under the new work structures should be based on previous relativities. For its part, the Company has pointed out that basic pay is but one component of the overall pay of the employees concerned. It says that the composite rates offered take account of the gross current earnings of the grades concerned, the attendance pattern expected of them under the new arrangements and other relevant considerations. This, the Company contends, was the basis on which the pay of other groups was determined in the present negotiations.
The Court accepts that, in respect of other groups, including those with whom comparison is now drawn, the Unions have successfully argued that overall earning levels should be reflected in the new composite rate.
From the information provided by the parties, it is clear that some groups have maintained high levels of average earnings by working extraordinary levels of overtime. In many cases, the level of overtime has arisen from fortuitous events, and there is a significant disparity in the gross hours worked by different groups. For those reasons, the Court does not accept that reliance on previous average earnings would provide a sound or fair basis for pay determination into the future.
The Court is of the view that the approach to be adopted in determining pay levels under the proposed new arrangements cannot completely discount previously agreed and well established internal pay relationships, although other factors are also clearly relevant. These include the impact of change expected from particular groups, and the degree to which they are prepared to cooperate with such change.
In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the changes in work practices sought by the Company from this grade are broadly similar in nature and degree to that conceded by the other grades with which their pay was previously linked. In the absence of any other logical basis on which pay can be determined in the current cases, and subject to the Unions accepting the full range of change measures sought by the Company, the Court considers that the Unions’ claim for the maintenance of existing internal pay linkages has merit.
The groups associated with this claim have previously had their pay linked to the Signal Person Grade 2. In the case of the Parcel Depotperson the Unions’ have claimed that this alignment be changed to Signal Person Grade 1. The Court does not accept that a change in the current pay linkage of this group is justified.
For the reasons stated above, the Court believes that the present linkage should be maintained. The Court, therefore, recommends that the pay of the grade of Parcel Depotperson and Senior Depotperson associated with this claim, be set at £22,033.15 (27,976.33 Euro) per annum for a 39 hour contract with pro-rata adjustments for contracts of longer duration.
Duration of Contracts.
In the case of the Signal Person grades, the Court recommended that contracts of 43,45 and 48 hours be offered. This recommendation was made on the basis of that attendance pattern being in line with the operational requirements of the Company in respect of those grades. In the present case, more flexibility is required in the rostering arrangements available to the Company.
The Court recommends that the duration of hours contracts should be determined by reference to the operational needs of the Company subject to a minimum of 39 hours and a maximum of 48 hours. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the Unions’ claim that contracts be confined to ones of 43, 45 and 48 hours duration.
Pay for New Entrants.
In their submissions to the Court, the Unions have expressed strong opposition to the Company's proposal to put a separate salary scale in place for new entrants to the grade.
The Court acknowledges that similar arrangements to those proposed by the Company in respect of the grades associated with this claim have been agreed in respect of other grades. The Court also accepts that the introduction of a salary scale for new entrants represents an important cost mitigation measure which the Company is legitimately entitled to pursue.
Nonetheless, the Court is conscious of the degree of opposition which exists to these proposed arrangements, and is of the view that further discussions should take place with a view to elongating the proposed salary scale so as to provide that new entrants have the potential to progress to pay levels comparable to those recommended for existing staff.
Future Pay Determination.
In previous related recommendations, the Court has found it necessary to comment critically on the decision of the parties to constitute each grade or category of employees as a separate negotiating unit for the purpose of the current negotiations. The inherent difficulties caused by this approach were also adverted to in the report prepared jointly by the Court and the Labour Relations Commission on issues arising from the dispute involving the ILDA in 2000. More recently, the special expert group appointed by the Minister for Public Enterprise to enquire into industrial relations within the Company, came to a similar conclusion to that reached by the Court and recommended a major streamlining of negotiating structures.
If that objective is to be achieved, it will necessitate the application to all groups of a transparent and uniform approach to future pay determination. In formulating its recommendations in the present series of referrals, the Court has been mindful of this imperative. Whilst separate recommendations are being issued in each case, they are all based on the same underlying rationale and, if accepted, will have the effect of providing a framework of internal pay linkages which could be relied upon in future negotiations. This, it is hoped, will facilitate the parties in re-establishing unified and coherent bargaining and decision-making structures within the Company.
The Court strongly recommends that on acceptance of these recommendations, the parties should commit to the establishment of unified negotiating structures, and should enter into immediate discussion on the establishment of such structures.
Finally, the stance adopted by the Unions’ in the present serious of claims was directed at maintaining the internal integrity of the Company’s pay structure. The strategy which the Court has adopted in the nine recommendations which it has issued is largely supportive of that position.
It should be clear that this strategy will be fatally undermined if any one of the recommendations in this series is rejected. The Court would, therefore, urge the Unions to consider adopting arrangements for deciding on these recommendations which will maximise the possibility of obtaining a common outcome in respect of all groups.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th September, 2001______________________
MO'C/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.