LCR21834

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/287

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21834

CC163392/18

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

IARNR�D ÉIREANN
IRISH RAIL

- AND -

8 OPERATIVES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:
1. Responsibility Allowance For Handling Overhead Line Equipment.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 26 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 22 November 2018, the following is the Recommendation of the Court:

UNION ARGUMENTS

The structure of allowances has not changed since 2006.
The roles and duties of the PICOP (person in charge of possession) have evolved and will continue to do so with increasing responsibility.
The PICOP role, in accordance with Section T of the rule book, is to deal with the duties they are trained to carry out and not with isolation limit permits.

EMPLOYER ARGUMENTS

There is no reasonable basis for this claim as the PICOP function has no safety responsibility.
The claim is a cost increasing claim in contradiction with LCR21605.
A precedent could be set that would jeopardise the Company's ability to make changes to its safety management system.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Court notes that the work for which a responsibility allowance is sought has been carried out by the Claimants for a number of years.

The Court also notes that the parties have a collective agreement made in accordance with the terms of Labour Court Recommendation LCR21605 and concluded in 2017 which provides for pay increases in each of the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. That agreement will expire on 30^thNovember 2020.

The Court notes in particular that the agreement provides:

That no future cost increasing claims will be made by the Trade Unions during the lifetime of this agreement and that the Company will not, outside of the engagements set out in this recommendation, propose any measures that will change employees’ terms and conditions of employment except through the medium of productivity discussions.

In light of the terms of the parties’ own collective agreement based on the terms of LCR21605 the Court is unable to recommend concession of the Trade Union’s claim. Neither has the Court been given a basis upon which it could recommend that the work at issue, which does not appear to the Court to be onerous in itself, should be re-structured so as to remove it from the Claimant’s and allocate it to other workers.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
JD______________________
23 November 2018Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.