FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AND NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 1. Alleged Breach of 2000 Agreement. 2. Redress in four instances for Employees who suffered loss as a consequence of alleged breaches of said agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. It is the Unions claim that the Company is in breach of a Collective Agreement reached by the parties in 2000, the Permanent Way. The Agreement identified a number of core staff totalling 452 who work 5 days out of 5 (5/5) and a number of duties were to be given to them on a priority basis. The Unions claim that the Company has breached the Agreement on a number of occasions by offering priority duties to staff who work 5 days out of 7 (5/7) instead of initially offering the work to core staff. The Company contends that the Unions' definition of core staff is flawed. The Unions define the core staff as an unchanging number of 452. When one of the 452 leaves for whatever reason they are replaced by a 5/7 worker who then changes his work pattern to 5/5. The Company maintains that the 5/7 staff retain their work pattern unless agreed earlier. The Company's position was set out in a letter to the Unions in June 2007.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As Agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th October, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company's breach of the 2000 Agreement has resulted in loss of earnings for core staff. In Cahir, night work carrying a premium pay rate, was offered to 5/7 staff before all 5/5 staff had been offered the work. It is the Unions view that the work at issue is prioritised as core staff work and that core staff were being denied this work.
2 A loss of earnings was incurred by the Limerick Junction Gang and the Dundrum Mobile Gang when both were denied night work with a premium pay rate as the were told they were needed on days. A gang of 5/7 contracted workers were put on nights. The Unions are seeking that the workers in these Gangs be awarded the difference between what they earned and what they would have earned had they been given the night work as per their entitlements.
3 On arrival at a Training Course for duties associated with core staff work, six 5/5 workers became aware of a 5/7 worker attending the course. The 5/5 workers indicated they would not continue with the course until the 5/7 employee was removed. The Company insisted he remain and the 5/5 workers returned back to their depot. The Company refused payment to the six employees involved for the period of time they left the course and their subsequent return to the Depot concerned. This situation was allowed develop by the Company and the Unions are seeking payment of any loss of earnings for the workers concerned.
4 When an acting-up Inspector's position became available due to annual leave, a member of the Cork Mobile Gang, who had previously acted up in similar capacity was overlooked. Two Mobile Gangers were asked if they would relieve the Inspector's position in Cork but both declined. Following this an Acting A Class Inspector from the Thurles area was brought into Cork to fill the position. The Unions objected to this because there were staff in Cork suitable for the position including the individual who had previously acted-up in the position. There was no issue with this individuals suitability in the past and his work record reflects this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 With regard to the staff who left the Training Course, their hours of attendance up to the point of leaving were paid. The shortfall in attendance resulted in lost time between leaving the Course and returning to their duties. As this action was unauthorised and unilateral, no payment is justified.
2 The Union claim that 5/7 staff in Dundrum and Tipperary were deployed on hours additional to their contract hours ahead of 5/5 staff. The Company rejects these claims. The 5/7 staff were deployed on the work involved, a Saturday and a Sunday morning, as part of their contract hours not in addition to their contract hours.
3 The 5/5 worker who claims that he was wrongly refused an opportunity to act on superior duty as a Permanent Way Inspector was dealt with by the Chief Civil Engineer. The Chief Civil Engineer advised the worker that the individual deployed was more suitable to the position. The position was filled by a 5/7 worker after two local Mobile Gangers declined it.
4 There were two 5/5 staff overlooked for night work in Cahir. The first individual was not qualified to undertake the duties required of him. The second individual declined the duty and then claimed it after it had been assigned. The Company did not facilitate him initially. However, in the face of a threat of an unofficial stoppage, the second individual replaced the 5/7 employee on the second and subsequent turns of duty.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made to it by the parties, with particular reference to the 2000 Permanent Way Agreement.
It is clear to the Court that the establishment of “core” workers as per the 2000 Agreement is 452 and that these are essentially 5/5 workers to whom the agreement- specific duties, such as flagging, lookout, PICOP, etc. should be allocated on a priority basis. This does not, under this Agreement, apply to 5/7 workers.
Any changes to these arrangements can only be made through negotiation and agreement between the parties, as in 2000, and the Court recommends that any such process be entered into by the parties, within a three month period, with the assistance, if necessary, of the Conciliation Service of the LRC, and following which, if so required, the Court would be available to the parties.
The four situations outlined at the Court hearing arose primarily from disputes regarding differing interpretations of the above.
While the Court does not endorse some of the actions taken by either party in these situations, it is inclined to treat the occurrences as once-off, exacerbated by the poor state of industrial relations in the Limerick Junction Division.
The Court accordingly recommends that, in this instance only:-
(a) The 16 staff in Dundrum/Limerick Junction be paid as claimed for;
(b) The two staff concerned be paid in respect of PICOP duties;
(c) The overlooked staff member be favourably considered for the next assignment to an Inspector’s position; and
(d) The staff who left the Training Course be paid for that part of the Training Course concerned which they attended, and then from the time and date the Training Course concerned ended.
The Court also advises that the parties should discuss whether the services of the LRC Advisory Service should be availed of in the Limerick Junction Division of the Permanent Way in order to examine relationships between the local management and workforce.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st January, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.