FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD 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 (Traffic Controllers).
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 30 employees in the Traffic Co-ordinator Grade who have responsibility for monitoring and managing freight and passenger transactions. The parties have failed to reach agreement on pay and restructuring arrangements covering Traffic Staff in the Traffic Co-ordinator Grade. Under the Company's Change Proposals the Station/Depot structure will be rationalised from 15 into 4 designated grades. The Unions' claim is that Traffic Co-ordinators be benchmarked to Signalperson Grade 1.with pay rates as follows:-
Grade 1.
39 hour £23,432,08 29,752.60 Euro
43 hour £25,835.01 32,803.70 Euro
45 hour £27,037.02 34,329.93 Euro
48 hour £28,839.45 36,618.55 Euro
The Company propose that Traffic Co-ordinator Grade will be located in the most Senior position in the new Station/Depot Structure Station Operative Grade 1. with pay rates as follows:-
39 hour £19,393 24,624.03 Euro
43 hour £21,382 27,149.54 Euro
45 hour £22,376 28,411.66 Euro
48 hour £23,868 30,306.11 Euro
The parties were unable to reach agreement on pay rates and rest periods. 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 July, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of August, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Traffic Co-ordinators carry out the duties of full-time supervisors which was previously Senior Depotpersons. They are involved in the Freight Department on a full-time basis.
2. The Company's pay proposals are set out in a six point scale but new entrants do not reach the top point of the scale.
3. The Company offered a minimum of 5 hours and a maximum of 12 hours per day. The rest period should be 12 hours except in an emergency, or where there is a change over of staff at the weekend
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 7 days provides significant benefit to staff and creates a Sunday service guarantee.
3. The composite earnings packages and incremental scales appropriately reflect the established and future work pattern of the staff concerned.
4. The staff concerned, approximately 60% of whom have entered the grade within the past eighteen months, will benefit by lump sum payments even though they do not have a well established earnings pattern in the grade.
5. The Labour Court has previously considered and remarked on the question of relativity claims against the background of the agreed bargaining structure
made up of autonomous bargaining units. Concession of the claim before the Court would give rise to significant additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a claim made on behalf of 30 Traffic Co-ordinators. 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 co-operate 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 that of the Signal Person Grade 1. For the reasons stated above, the Court believes that this linkage should be maintained. The Court, therefore, recommends that the pay of the grade associated with this claim be set at £23,432.08 (29752.60 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,CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.