LCR21556

The issue of ‘past productivity’ is essentially a claim by the Trade Unions that productivity which had been delivered in the past but not paid for has to be acknowledged by way of financial reward. The parties have been before the Court on two occasions in relation to this matter. The earlier Recommendations of the Court (LCR21084 and LCR21371) had essentially found that the parties should engage together to jointly identify what areas of productivity had been implemented in the past outside of agreements concluded between the parties. The Court had encouraged the parties, against the background of what appears to be an established practice in the company of sharing the monetary value of savings arising from productivity, to agree the value of any identified items of ‘past productivity’ as part of the process of reaching agreement on the matter.

The Court has been advised that, following the work of a joint working group and an agreed facilitator at various stages, the facilitator had placed a value on a pay award to locomotive drivers arising from the delivery of ’past productivity’ of .8% of pay. Both parties in their submissions confirmed to the Court their non-acceptance of this valuation.

The matter of ‘mentoring’ is an issue related to the process of driver training whereby trained locomotive drivers ‘mentor’ drivers in training. The Court understands that all drivers in the company have benefitted from training support delivered by trained drivers during the course of their development as trainee locomotive drivers. The Court also understands that the process of ‘mentoring’ represents a development of a long established process of involvement of trained drivers in the training of trainee drivers. The parties are agreed that ‘mentoring’ is currently undertaken by drivers on a voluntary basis. The current situation appears to be that trained drivers have not been volunteering for ‘mentoring’ for some time and this has created an incapacity to train new drivers in the company. Trained drivers receive an additional payment of €115 per week for each week in which they ‘mentor’ a trainee driver. It is understood that less than 50 of the more than 500 trained drivers are likely to be involved in mentoring each year over the foreseeable future having regard to anticipated requirements for new driver recruitment in the company.

The company wish to have an assurance that trained drivers will participate in ‘mentoring’ to the degree necessary to deliver the necessary support for drivers in training. The current system does not deliver that outcome insofar as drivers currently in training are not being ‘mentored’ and consequently are not receiving the training necessary to become trained drivers.

The Court has, at the behest of the parties, considered the matters before the Court in the round. It is not possible for the Court to undertake a fresh process of valuation of ‘past productivity’ and in realistic terms it is not possible to envisage a resolution to the ‘mentoring’ issue which does not assure the company that when it recruits drivers into the future it will be able to provide necessary training.

The Court has, in earlier Recommendations, attempted to set in place processes which would facilitate the parties in achieving agreement as regards these matters. The parties have not found that agreement. In all of the circumstances the Court recommends the following in full and final settlement of the matters before the Court:

• That the company should make a pay adjustment of 1.15% to all drivers to acknowledge all ‘past productivity’ and to put in place an arrangement whereby it shall be a requirement of the driver grade that sufficient numbers of drivers can be assigned ‘mentoring’ duties at all times to satisfy the training needs of trainee drivers in this regard.