FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim that 4 employees in Division 5 integrate into mobile gangs
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Irish Rail and SIPTU in relation to the integration of 4 patrol gangers into mobile gangs. Continuous welded rail requires the line to be patrolled only one day per week where as the previously used jointed track required checking three days per week. It is proposed to integrate these workers into mobile gangs for the remainder of the working week. The patrol gangers on integration retain their rate of pay but the parties are in dispute in relation to the appropriate process for integration.
The Union's position is that workers that are willing to integrate shoud be allowed to do so and should benefit from the addtional payments on offer for completion of the process. It contends that these workers should not lose out because other workers are unwilling to integrate into the mobile gangs.
Management's position is that it cannot agree to a situation where only individual workers integrate. It contends that it requires the agreement of the entire division prior to completing the integration.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on18th August, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd December, 2010.
The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court notes that workers in Division 5 in Dublin are divided amongst themselves as to whether the Division should or should not integrate under the terms of the 2000 Agreement. The Company has indicated that, for operational and efficiency purposes, it can only accommodate integration on a divisional basis. The union side indicated that a substantial number of workers in Division 5 wished to integrate and that the Company should facilitate this as their concerns regarding the efficient deployment of staff are unfounded in this case.
After careful consideration the Court recommends that the patrol gangers in this Division should be balloted to determine if they wish to integrate or remain separate. A majority decision should bind the entire department and when the result of that ballot is known the Company should proceed to give effect to that decision.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd December 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.