Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94474 Case Number: LCR14585 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning erosion of pay-differential.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions from
the parties and the detailed background to the claim.
In all the circumstances the Court has concluded that the
Company's position is reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94474 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14585
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning erosion of pay-differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose following a claim on behalf of 5 Central
Traffic Control (C.T.C.) signalmen for restoration of pay-
differential with locomotive drivers (10 C.T.C. signalmen
represented by a different Union are not claiming erosion of
the differential). Prior to the implementation of the Rail
Operative Productivity Agreement, in May, 1994, the C.T.C.
signalmen received a basic rate (top of scale) of #4.66 more
than locomotive drivers.
Included in the Productivity Agreement was a mileage buyout
whereby the drivers received an increase of #5.77 per week.
The Union claims that this increase erodes the differential
previously enjoyed by the signalmen. The claim was rejected
by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference followed at which agreement was
not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 14th of
September, 1994, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 10th of October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An anomaly now exists whereby the signalmen, whose
'high-tech' operation had placed them on top of the
pay-scale, are now downgraded in terms of basic pay and
status.
2. The savings realised from the suppression of various
signalling positions (details provided) comprise part of
the basket of savings achieved from all Rail Operative
grades. A portion of these savings is shared among all
grades in accordance with an agreed formula. This
arrangement is unfair to the signalmen as their input is
vast compared to other grades.
3. The Company agreed to increase the locomotive drivers'
basic rate by #5.77 in respect of the elimination of
mileage payments although many drivers were never in
receipt of these payments.
4. The extended workload is a permanent feature for the
C.T.C. signalmen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The productivity agreement has been accepted and
implemented. The Labour Court (LCR 14417) has
previously found that the payments to the C.T.C.
signalpersons were appropriate. The Court's
Recommendation has been accepted by a majority of the
signalpersons.
2. There is no established relationship between C.T.C.
signalpersons and locomotive drivers, and fluctuation in
the differential down the years clearly illustrates
this.
3. Productivity payments cannot be used as a valid basis
for 'comparability' claims between different grades and
this principle has been upheld by the Labour Court.
Concession of the claim would undermine the integrity of
the Productivity Agreement, as other grades would claim
that relativities have been disturbed by the
productivity payments.
4. Concessions outside of the Rail Operative Productivity
Agreement would result in additional costs - such claims
are debarred under the PESP and the PCW.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions from
the parties and the detailed background to the claim.
In all the circumstances the Court has concluded that the
Company's position is reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
M.K./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.