FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NBRU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Compensation for Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a proposed move for 77 locomotive drivers from their Inchicore base to Heuston Station. In June, 2008 discussions began between the parties concerning a proposed relocation of Inchicore based drivers to a newly built facility at Heuston Station. The decision by Management to move the drivers from Inchicore was based on a number of factors including the deterioration of the facility and that the drivers must be transferred by way of rail taxi to Heuston after reporting to Inchicore. The Unions position is that the Drivers are satisfied with their current location and no explanation has been given to them as to why Management requested the move. A consultation process took place regarding the new facilities and disturbance payment.
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 30th November 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The disturbance pay on offer is the current disturbance once off lump sum which has been in place since the withdrawal of freight by the Employer in 2006. There has been over the years a number of compensation payments made to a wide range of groups and grades which have been far in excess of Management's proposed payments.
2 The move will have an impact on all Locomotive Drivers in Inchicore who chose that base for the suitability of its location. It will impose an additional journey time on the Drivers. All current training facilities are based in Inchicore.
3 The Locomotive Drivers have no desire to move to Heuston Station. None of the savings from the move are being passed on to the Drivers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The method for compensation of employees who move location is agreed with the trade unions and is well established within Iarnrod Eireann. It was originally introduced in 2006. The current agreed arrangements are quite generous and compare favourably with industry generally.
2 The Drivers representatives have been involved from the outset and any issues or concerns raised about the new facilities were addressed.
3 Iarnrod Eireann's current financial situation would be further exacerbated by concession of this claim which would undoubtedly lead to knock on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties. The Court notes that the main concerns of the drivers regarding the suitability of the new premises have been addressed through the consultation process that took place at the design and build phase of the project. The principal outstanding issue now relates to a claim for compensation for the adverse effect that the relocation will have on the commuting times of the workers affected and on the length of their working day.
The Court notes that there is a relocation agreement in place between the parties since 2006 that applies in this case. The Court further notes that the CPI increased by 4% in the period mid-December 2006 to mid-December 2010. This has resulted in a reduction in the real value of the terms of the 2006 agreement. Accordingly the Court recommends that the terms of the lump sum and service-based elements of the agreement be adjusted by this amount to restore its real value to 2006 levels.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim that the current half hour signing on time should be excluded for roster purposes in the future. The Court is satisfied that the additional half hour that becomes available for productive work as a result of the relocation can, in time, be incorporated into the roster schedules through the normal discussions and negotiations that take place on these matters in accordance with the relevant collective agreements.
Whether and the extent to which any savings and productivity gains that result from the relocation to Heuston Station should be encompassed by the driver productivity discussions that are ongoing are matters to be dealt with, in due course, by the parties themselves.
On the basis of this Recommendation the parties should, as a matter of urgency, complete the move to Heuston Station without further delay.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th March, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.