FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL - AND - SIPTU NBRU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Reduced Working Week 2. Mentoring 3. Payment For Past Productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to a number of issues which were previously the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 21084. The matters could not be resolved at local level and were the subject of a Conciliation Conference held under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th December 2016. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter comes before the Court following Court Recommendation number LCR 21084. That Recommendation addressed the issues of ‘past productivity’ and ‘hours of work’ and provided as follows
Productivity
“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. “
- 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.
- “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. “
- 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.
The parties engaged subsequent to the issue of LCR21084 including with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission. The parties have now asked the Court to issue a definitive recommendation dealing with the issues of ‘past productivity’ and ‘hours of work’. In addition the issue of ‘mentoring’ is before the court. This issue had, the Court understands, previously been considered by the parties in the context of productivity discussions.
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Productivity
The Court in its earlier recommendation recommended that the parties should engage comprehensively as regards productivity. That engagement would, necessarily, encompass consideration of what could be described as past productivity as well as considering what, if any, measure of agreement could be found as regards fresh / future productivity in an effort to conclude overall agreement on the issue of productivity.
The parties have engaged external expertise and refined greatly the issue of past productivity to the degree that particular matters have been identified as relevant in the context of any process which might lead to the conclusion of a productivity agreement.
The other aspect of productivity discussion which rationally arises is the issue of fresh / future productivity. Consideration of this matter would normally involve a process involving the identification of issues of productivity which might be capable of agreement. The process would then involve engagement as regards evaluation of any such potential agreement and identification of the means through which both parties could benefit were an agreement to be concluded.
The Court, as noted above, understands that very significant progress has been made in the parties’ attempts to identify matters of past productivity which might be capable of being considered as part of an overall productivity agreement. Clearly the achievement of agreement will ultimately require the parties to agree a valuation of such productivity as part of an overall productivity agreement.
The Court cannot depart from the approach previously set out in LCR 21084. The Court therefore recommends that the parties re-engage to develop fully the agenda of productivity to incorporate items already identified of past productivity which are capable of consideration having regard to the terms of LCR21084 as well as items of fresh / future productivity which might, all other things being equal, be agreed. The agenda should involve a clear attempt being made to agree an evaluation of all items of productivity and the means whereby both parties could benefit from implementation of those items were agreement to be reached. It is only if disagreement is arrived at on matters of this nature that the Court would see itself being in a position to address definitively the issue of productivity. The parties may request such a definitive Recommendation from the Court at that time if both parties consider it necessary.
Hours of Work
The parties engaged subsequent to the issue of LCR21084. The parties ultimately disagreed as regards fundamental aspects of this issue including issues associated with cost and pension. The matter of reducing the hours of work of drivers from the current 43.5 hours liability to a 39 hour liability has been presented to the Court as a complex one. The Court is not, on the basis of the submissions made, in a position to evaluate the divergent perspectives of the parties as regards the operational and cost implications of making adjustments to the working hours of drivers.
In those circumstances the Court must conclude that the work of exploring fully the potential for agreement on this issue is not complete. The Court in particular takes the view that the parties should be capable, with independent technical assistance if necessary, of reaching a common position as regards cost and operational implications of this matter.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties re-engage to develop fully their understandings of this matter such that if a further referral to the Court is ultimately considered necessary the matters referred are of an industrial relations nature and set against a background of shared understanding of factual matters.
Mentoring.
The matter of mentoring came before the Court on foot of a referral by the Workplace Relations Commission. The Court did not however have the benefit of submissions from both parties and consequently is not in a position to consider the matter. In the event that the parties agree that this matter should be considered as a ‘stand-alone’ the matter should be referred directly to the Court with comprehensive submissions setting out both the facts of the matter and the parties’ proposition(s) for resolution.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
22nd December 2016______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.