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 (Depotpersons).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced discussions with the Unions in April, 1997, on re-structuring the terms and conditions of different categories of employees. There are presently 15 designated staff grades in the Station/Depot structure. Under the Company’s proposals, the structure would be rationalised from 15 to 4 designated grades.
There are approximately 400 workers in the Depotperson Grade, which is the recruitment/entry grade. Under the Company’s proposals, they would be deployed as Station Operatives Grade 4 and would be remunerated as follows:
39 hour contract £16,741 (21,256.69 Euro)
43 hour contract £18,458 (23,436.83 Euro)
45 hour contract £19,316 (24,526.26 Euro)
48 hour contract £20,604 (26,161.68 Euro)
The Unions are claiming that the Depotpersons should be banded in three groups – 43 hour contracts, 45 hour contracts and 48 hour contracts. Their claim is as follows:
39 hour contract £20,380.66 (25,878.10 Euro) (to identify basic rate)
43 hour contract £22,470.98 (28,532.26 Euro)
45 hour contract £23,516.15 (29,859.35 Euro)
48 hour contract £25,083.89 (31,849.97 Euro)
There are other issues in contention between the parties, such as the Company’s proposed new six point pay scale, the length of rest periods, the reckonable period for rosters, five over seven day working and other flexibilities in work practices. The parties were unable to reach agreement either at local level or at conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission up to the 13th of June, 2001. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of July, 2001, for investigation and recommendation in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the issue on the 31st of July, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Depotpersons are a key group throughout the Organisation as they hold certification to relieve in all duties of higher grades such as Guards, Ticket Checkers, Shunters, Signalpersons, Parcel Depot Persons, Supervisors, Senior Depot Persons and Traffic Coordinators. They work exceptionally long hours, as high as 100 hours per week in some cases.
2. There is approximately a 7.5% difference in the pay scales of Depotpersons and the grade of staff that they relieve, i.e. Guard, Ticket Checker, etc. This percentage differential must not be eroded. Their hours should also be banded as follows: 39 hours (to identify basic rate of pay), 43 hours, 45 hours and 48 hours. Staff who presently work a five day week should not be placed in a five over seven day situation.
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 where a change of shift may be required at weekends. The reckonable period for rosters should be 8 weeks or based on the number of rosters at each station.
4. The Company is proposing to introduce a two tier wage structure. It is grossly unfair and unjust that Depotpersons, who may have worked for years within the Company, will be forced to work through a six point pay scale when they are promoted into higher positions, yet they will never reach the top rate of the scale. This is already causing serious industrial relations problems in other grades.
5. The grades of Area Depotperson, Depotpersons in charge of Halt and Parcel Depotpersons who receive a higher basic rate of pay, should be benchmarked against Senior Depotpersons, and for the purpose of the Unions’ claim, should be benchmarked against Signalpersons Category 2 as set out in Labour Court recommendation LCR16685.
6. A Monitoring Committee with a Chairperson recommended by the Labour Court should be put in place. Rosters should be agreed immediately and implemented within a specified timeframe. Loss of earnings should be compensated in accordance with the existing agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing grading structure has evolved over a long number of years and has given rise to demarcations and restrictive practices. The proposed new structure will enable those responsible for Station/Depot operations to prioritise work/duties to meet the immediate needs of customers. As some employees will bear greater responsibilities than others, they should receive a higher payment. Accordingly, four grades are proposed together with four levels of remuneration.
2. In order to deal with the unacceptable nature of seven day working, the Company is proposing a regular, stable five day roster system deployed over seven days, including Sundays. It is also proposed to reduce the maximum average hours worked to 48 hours weekly, from an average of 51.2 hours.
3. The Company proposes to ‘consolidate’ elements of pay such as basic weekly pay, shift allowance, overtime, Sunday and Public Holiday premiums into composite earnings packages, which will relate to the level of hours contract concerned. In this ‘composite’ structure the basic pay element on which pension entitlements are calculated is considerably enhanced. Payment during authorised absence is also guaranteed at a consistent level.
4. The proposed new six point incremental scales will provide earnings stability and pay progression for new entrants. The special higher rate for existing staff acknowledges the established earnings pattern of staff who have contributed in most instances over a long number of years, where the burden of regular six/seven day working existed.
5. The current basic weekly rate of pay for a Depotperson is £235.22 (298.67 Euro), while the average earnings in the last tax year were £20,508 (26,039.79 Euro). The proposed maximum 48 hour contract for an existing Depotperson is £20,604 (26,161.68 Euro), which amounts to a consistent weekly payment of £394.96 (501.50 Euro) per week, regardless of any variation in hours worked. This will provide a stable earnings environment for the employees concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a claim made on behalf of over 400 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 series 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 practice 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 grade of Depotperson is not directly linked with any other grade within the Company’s current pay structure. Nonetheless, it is clear from the information provided to the Court that over a prolonged period the basic pay of Depotpersons has remained at 92.5% of the basic pay of Signal Persons Grade 2.
For the reasons stated above, the Court believes that this indirect linkage should be maintained. The Court, therefore, recommends that the pay of the grade Depotperson, associated with this claim, be set at £20,380.66 (25,878.10 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 series 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______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.