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 Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay for acting up (Athlone Signal Cabin).
BACKGROUND:
2. A programme is underway to extend the area of control of the Centralised Traffic Control (CTC) currently located at Connolly Station, Dublin. In June, 2002, the Company extended the CTC signalling system from Ballinasloe to Galway. The Company was required to install an emergency control panel (ECL) in Athlone which was to operate from June, 2003, for a six month period, following which control would revert to Connolly Station. It was proposed that the Station Operatives (4) in Athlone would operate the new system. The Union's claim is that the operatives should be paid on the 10th point of the Signals Person Grade 1 pay scale (€770.18 per week). The Company's offer is the 6th point of the scale (€693.16 per week).
A Traffic Monitoring Committee has been established since July, 2002. The present case was put before it and the Chairman's decision issued on the 12th of September, 2002. In effect, the decision was that on appointment to the new grade, employees would receive an increase on the higher grade plus an additional increment.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of June, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned should be on the 10th point of the scale. They are being asked to monitor very technical equipment and have a lot of extra responsibility because of the new work.
2. The Union informed the Chairman of the Traffic Monitoring Committee that there would be problems with his decision.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both sides agreed that the terms of reference of the Traffic Monitoring Committee allowed for binding decision making powers from the independent Chairman. In June, 2003, the Chairman issued a further binding decision that was consistent with his original decision of 12th of September, 2002.
2. The Company had structured the work pattern in such a way as to give maximum benefit to the workers concerned in terms of contract hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that this dispute was dealt with to finality by the Traffic Monitoring Committee as provided for in the Company/Union agreement. The decision of the Committee, as formulated by its Chairman, is final and binding on all parties. In those circumstances, the Court cannot and would not interfere with that decision.
The Court recommends that the dispute be resolved in accordance with the decision of the Chairman of the Traffic Monitoring Committee.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th September, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.