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 Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. OHLE Ganger Rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimants (OHLE Gangers) are a group of Workers who are responsible for the maintenance of the overhead lines on the DART line between Greystones and Howth/Malahide. The Claimants are seeking an increase in pay rate to match the rate paid to Mobile gangers within the Permanent Way Maintenance Structure and with Signal Gangers within the Signal Maintenance Structure. The Company sees no merit in the claim and suggests that there is a justifyable historical reason for the differential in rate.
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 2nd May, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three groups of Gangers are engaged in broadly similar work, but it is recognised that the OHLC Gangers have a higher level of responsibility and competency skills, it is therefore fair and reasonable that the OHLC Gangers are paid a similar rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Mobile and Signal Gangers are both paid a composite rate per hour reached through Collective Agreements in 2001 and 2012 respectively and both included previous allowances which were incorporated into their basic pay rate. The OHLC Gangers were never in receipt of such an allowance, thus justifying the differential in their hourly pay rate.
2. The Company is facing the worst financial crisis in its history, concession of this claim with its inherent knock-on potential could lead to significant job losses and further reductions in terms and conditions in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
- It is clear that the differential now in issue was established by a collective agreement between the Union and the Company in 2001. The differential was acceptable for over ten years and the Court cannot discern any justifiable reason as to why it should now be regarded as unacceptable.
For this reason the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th September, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.