FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SIPTU & NBRU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Past productivity & Hours of Work.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a dispute over past productivity and hours of work. This 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 6th November, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th November, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court following intensive negotiations between the parties in conciliation provided by the Workplace Relations Commission. While the issues between the parties were significantly refined in conciliation final agreement was not reached. The Unions had engaged in industrial action, in the form of a limited work stoppage, in pursuance of their claims and further industrial action was scheduled to occur. At the request of the WRC the Unions agreed to defer any further industrial action and to refer outstanding issues to the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Two items on which agreement could not be reached were referred to the Court by the WRC with the agreement of the parties. The items submitted for investigation by the Court were listed in the referral as: -
- 1. Past productivity2. Hours of Work
In the course of its investigation the Court received comprehensive and helpful submissions from all parties. The Court also had the benefit of meeting with the parties separately in side-session during which their respective positions were more fully explored.
Having evaluated the positions adopted by both sides the Court has formulated the recommendations that follow. These recommendations are not intended to provide a final or definitive resolution of the core issues of difference between the parties. Rather, they are intended to provide a basis upon which the parties can reengage within a structured framework with a view to finding a final resolution to the issues in dispute.
Productivity
The Company have put forward proposals directed at providing Locomotive Drivers with phased pay increases based on the delivery of verifiable and auditable cost savings derived from changes in work practices and other efficiencies leading to increased productivity. It is the Company’s position that this process can only take account of productivity savings generated in the future. For their part, the Unions insist that productivity savings generated in the past must be compensated for. They are unwilling to participate in the process proposed by the Company unless the question of what they describe as past productivity is first addressed.
Having considered all the circumstances surrounding this aspect of the claim the Court recommends as follows: -
- The parties should enter a process of negotiation on productivity. In that process all changes and efficiencies generating verifiable and auditable savings which continue to accrue to the company, and which have not previously been compensated for, should be taken into account. In that regard, measures that were taken into account in earlier collective agreements should be disregarded.
The Court further recommends that the parties should establish a working party representative of management and the unions, facilitated by an agreed independent expert in the field of productivity measurement. The process should be overseen by the WRC and work under the auspices of the Commission.
This working party should undertake its role as expeditiously as possible and should strive to complete its task within an indicative time frame of four months from the date on which the process commences.
It the course of the investigation it became clear that the Unions immediate position is that a comparative study should be undertaken of working conditions of Locomotive Drivers employed in Northern Ireland and by Rail Operators in Great Britain. The stated position of the Company is that it has no fundamental objection to such a benchmarking exercise but they do not believe that such an exercise will greatly benefit either party.
On this aspect of the dispute the Court recommends as follows: -
- An exercise should be undertaken to examine the totality of terms and conditions applicable to Locomotive Drivers in the comparator undertakings proposed by the Unions. This should be without prejudice to the position of either party on what should follow from the results of that exercise.
This exercise should be undertaken by a working party representative of both sides facilitated by the WRC with the assistance of such expert independent advisors as may be considered necessary.
This process should run in parallel with the process recommended in relation to the question of productivity.
The outcome of the process should form the basis for further negotiations between the parties. It should be clearly understood that participation in this exercise cannot be construed as implying a commitment to make adjustment in the terms and conditions of those associated with this claim on foot of the information obtained.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th November, 2015______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.