FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay for DART and Inter City drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The drivers operating Inter City/ DART services reached separate 'New Deal' pay for productivity agreements in recent years. In both cases equal rates of pay and incremental pay scales apply. Initially agreements provided for a defined rate for existing drivers in either category. New entrants were placed on a six year incremental scale, the maximum point of which was less than the rate applicable to existing drivers. Following an external Review Group recommendation a proposal was accepted by the parties for an elongation of the pay scale to ten incremental points with a provision for new entrants to achieve existing drivers' rate on completion of progression along this scale. One feature of the deals for traffic grades provides for an increase on promotion. Some of these grades overlap in pay terms with drivers. A situation has arisen whereby if such workers apply for driving positions they are on a higher scale than those workers with more seniority as drivers. This is not acceptable to the Unions who have proposed that the situation could be resolved by the placing of drivers on the CTC signalpersons scale. Management rejected the proposal. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in July, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 1st October, 2003.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the new 10 year scale commenced it was discovered that a number of drivers were not on the correct point of the scale. The Company stated it was an error and chose to freeze those drivers on point 3 and 4 of the scale until other drivers caught up. This has resulted in situations whereby (for example) a driver was reduced from point 5 of the scale to point 4 and is to remain on this point of the scale until 2004.
2. In 2003 the Monitoring Committee representing traffic grades from which locomotive drivers are promoted, recommended that those promoted or acting in the grade would receive the next highest point plus one point in the grade to which they were promoted. This meant that staff moving to point 3 or 4 on the train drivers' scale, upon entering the drivers' grade, received more money and reached the top of the scale quicker than those workers who had spent at least 2 years within the driving grades. This anomaly should be rectified.
3. A comparison of the scales of train drivers, who went on driving duties before the new rates became effective for the traffic grades of Signalpersons Grade1, Station Operative Grades 1&2 and Train guard/ticket checker, will clearly outline to the Court the anomaly that exists between the Inter City/DART drivers.
4. In January, 2003 pay scales were issued in respect of new entrants to the CTC signalpersons grade. Prior to 2003 drivers always maintained parity with CTC signalpersons. This is borne out by the fact that at point 5 to point 10 of the scale existing drivers and signalpersons are paid similar rates. The scale which applies to CTC signalpersons should be applicable to the Inter City and DART drivers. It is the only way to deal fairly with workers on entering the driver grade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company has offered to workers appointed to driving positions the nearest highest plus one adjustment on the scale, which is the norm throughout the organisation, in cases of promotion across incremental scales. It is also the norm in the public sector. The final 'New Deal' document presented to DART drivers for ballot in April, 2000 provided that "staff will be placed on the appropriate point on the scale dependant on their current continuous service and grade. Incremental pay scales are a fundamental part of the New Deal agreements. Their rationale has previously been supported by the Court (LCR 16897 refers). The public service methodology applied to progress along those scales has long existed in the organisation.
2. An anomaly was identified in December, 2002 wherein a small number of probationary drivers on appointment were placed at the incorrect point of the scale. Management decided to stabilise the rate of these drivers at the 4th incremental point, until such time as they would ordinarily have reached this level. This was done to rectify the situation over time and avoid a steep decrease in earnings to the drivers concerned. The Company approach was fair despite the additional cost incurred. Management cannot concede the Unions' claim to raise the rate of all drivers, rather than adjust the incorrect rate of the small number currently in receipt of the inflated rate. To concede the Unions' claim would lead to immediate financial consequences and irreparably damage the New Deal agreements.
3. The New Deal for CTC signalpersons was not implemented until December, 2001. The CTC pay scales were considered by the unions at the time the elongated drivers scale was being debated. No opposition was expressed in response to the company's intention to introduce clearly different scales for two distinct groups of workers.
4. To allow one group to effectively renegotiate their deal in order to preserve a non existent relativity would lead to a situation which would go out of control as opportunities to alter existing agreement are constantly explored.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claims before the Court relate to the application of incremental pay scales, which apply to DART and Inter City locomotive drivers. The Unions seek the application of the same scale as applies to the CTC signalmen so as to eliminate any anomalies which may arise as a result of the assimilation of workers promoted from traffic grades into the driver grade.
For those workers who transferred from the traffic grades prior to the new deals being completed in their previous grades, the Unions seek compensation as they lost out on assimilation into the new driver grade. For this group the Court recommends that they should be assimilated to an appropriate point on the scale relative to their past service in the organisation i.e. nearest highest point plus one.
The difficulty for the Unions where a driver is training a promoted person, who is on a higher rate of pay due to their service in the Company overall, was highlighted to the Court. The Court is of the view that this is a transitional problem due to the introduction of incremental scales and will resolve itself with the passage of time. The Court is of the view that the proposed method of assimilation on promotion is a standard one involving incremental scales and is reasonable in the circumstance.
The Court endorses the Company's method of dealing with the error made when a small number of workers were incorrectly assimilated.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that there is no merit in the claim for the CTC signalmen rate to be applied to the drivers. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th October, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.