Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87553 Case Number: LCR11596 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the alteration to the boards
implemented in the case of 3 of the claimants are of a minor
nature and brought on due to customer demand. The Court also
notes that for 2 of the claimants a further revision in 1987 has
more than restored their level of earnings. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
compensation.
With regards to the 4th claimant the Court notes that the revised
board was introduced as a result of loss of business and does not
recommend payment of compensation in this case also.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87553 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11596
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim arose from the loss of earnings by four drivers.
The first three drivers had their boards altered to allow for a 15
minute later departure on the Cork/Rylane service in the case of
one driver, and Cork/Schull services, in the case of two others.
The changes were brought about as a result of passenger demand.
The fourth driver concerned in the claim used to operate school
trips each morning in the Buttervant area before the first
departure for Cork at 09.15 hours, and each afternoon following
his arrival from Cork at 16.20 hours. In September, 1986, the
need for the school runs decreased due to the fall off in children
using the services, and the runs themselves were shortened thereby
reducing the over-time available to the worker. The Union on
behalf of the workers concerned, estimated the annual losses to be
as follows:-
Driver A (Cork Rylane Service)
Annual Loss #217.75
Driver B (Cork Schull Service)
Annual Loss #174.50
Driver C (Cork Schull Service)
Annual Loss #87.25
Driver D (Buttervant Area School Service)
Annual Loss #887.25
The Union, on behalf of the workers, is seeking two and a half
times the annual loss. The Company were not prepared to concede
the claim, on the grounds that the changes in the boards were part
of normal ongoing operational changes. The Company also contends
that subsequent revision of boards increased the earnings of two
of the drivers. Agreement was not reached on the matter at local
level and on 8th September, 1986, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 22nd October, 1986 but no agreement was
reached. Due to a misunderstanding the matter was not referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation, until the
9th July, 1987. A Court hearing took place in Cork on, 2nd
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. With regard to the greater of the claims, the Union
submits that in similar circumstances offers of compensation
have been made (details supplied to Court). The principle is
well established. When the driver applied for the board he
undertook all the obligations that go with it, and not merely
that he work a flat day.
2. The claims which arose due to a change in the time table
were occasioned, not as a result of a fall in business, but as
a result of public request and demand. The Union has no
objection to this so long as the workers are compensated for
the losses incurred.
3. Similar revisions in the past have been compensated for,
and there is no acceptable reason why things should now be
different. Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. CM/16715
and its subsequent appeal to the Court by the Company bear out
this point. L.C.R. No. 10704 also has a direct bearing on the
case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has argued that the changes in departure times
and the cancellation of the school trip were part of a
rationalisation which had taken place in Cork provincial
services the previous year and stated that in view of this
fact compensation for loss of earnings should be paid. The
Company rejects this view. The number of service boards were
reduced, and a five day week introduced for provincial drivers
during the 1985 rationalisation of services. The only changes
in the current instance were alteration in timetables and the
cancellation of a school trip.
2. The changes were part and parcel of the mandate on the
Company to meet customer requirements. It is not correct to
compare minor alterations in operating boards with the
introduction of a 5 day week and the reduction in the number
of service boards.
3. Since the introduction of the revised operating board in
June, 1987, a further revision has taken place since
September, 1987 (details with Court). This has led to an
increase in earnings for Driver B and C. This illustrates the
Company's argument that revision in the operation boards is
part and parcel of the jobs, and what may be lost in one
revision may be gained in the next.
4. 4. In the case of Driver D, it should be pointed out that due
to the drop in the number of children attending school from
the Tullyduff area the overtime is reduced. The school
transport services which are provided by Bus Eireann are
funded by the Department of Education who also give the
guidelines for the areas they wish to have serviced. In the
Tullyduff case the requirements have changed therefore the
Company must alter the operating board. The payment of
compensation would be an additional expense to the cost of
operating the school but services at a time when the
Government is examining all areas of public expenditure and
especially education with a view to reducing the national
debt.
5. Payment of compensation for loss of earnings in these
cases would have serious financial repercussive effects on
Management's ability to revise operating boards which has to
be done from time to time because of loss of business or to
meet customer demands.
6. The Labour Court has on previous occasions and
particularly in Recommendation No. 8,118 declined concession
of similar compensation for loss of earnings claims. (Details
supplied to Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the alteration to the boards
implemented in the case of 3 of the claimants are of a minor
nature and brought on due to customer demand. The Court also
notes that for 2 of the claimants a further revision in 1987 has
more than restored their level of earnings. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
compensation.
With regards to the 4th claimant the Court notes that the revised
board was introduced as a result of loss of business and does not
recommend payment of compensation in this case also.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
17th December,____1987.
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.