Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87472 Case Number: LCR11259 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - ICTU GROUP OF UNIONS;NBU |
Interpretation of Clause 1.3 of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that there is no provision for the compulsory
transfer of spare conductors in the agreement or Labour Court
Recommendation on OPO, and further, that the terms of the national
agreement, Clause 21, are not applicable to the present
circumstances in Clontarf.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should negotiate
an agreement to cover the new and unforseen circumstances which
have arisen having regard to the Company's need, in the interest
of efficiency, to employ all its staff as effectively as possible.
If agreement is not possible the issue should be referred back to
the Court within one month.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87472 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11259
CC87939 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11259
Parties: BUS ATH CLIATH
and
ICTU GROUP OF UNIONS
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Interpretation of Clause 1.3 of Labour Court Recommendation
No. 9901.
Background:
2. LCR9901, issued in July, 1985, set the basis on which one
person operation (OPO) of double-deck and large capacity
single-deck buses and the DART feeder services were introduced in
Dublin City in early 1986. Clause 1.3 of this recommendation
reads as follows:-
Company's position: The Company guarantees jobs in
their own grades in their own
garages and on their own routes
for marked-in drivers and
marked-in conductors not engaged
in OPO.
Union's position (Group): Any driver or conductor who does
not wish to participate in OPO
will continue as a TPO in his/her
own location and on his/her own
route.
Court's recommendation: Agreed by the parties.
3. A dispute subsequently arose in Clontarf Garage when the
Company sought to transfer 46 spare conductors to other locations
where staff shortages exist. The spare staff in question exist
because of the implementation of OPO in the garage. The Unions
allege that this is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the OPO agreement
and were not agreeable to the proposed transfers going ahead. The
Company wanted to refer the dispute to the Joint Tribunal, set up
under Clause 18 of LCR9901, to deal specifically with disputes
arising out of the implementation of OPO, but the ICTU Group was
not agreeable to this. Therefore, on the 8th June, 1987,
Management issued an instruction to the 46 spare conductors to
report to other garages on the 15th June. Because of threatened
industrial action by the Union, the Labour Court intervened on the
12th June and invited the parties to a conciliation conference on
the 15th June. It was also agreed to postpone any industrial
action while the Court dealt with the matter. A conciliation
conference held on the 15th June failed to resolve the issue and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 18th June, 1987.
ICTU Group's arguments:
4. (a) LCR9901 has operated since January, 1986, under the
clear interpretation on both sides that every driver
and conductor was guaranteed his/her own location.
Clontarf Garage has been carrying these spare
conductors for a full year now and during that time the
previous personnel officer confirmed at meetings that
there would be no question of forcing staff to leave
the garage.
(b) The Unions have maintained that all transfers must be
voluntary but have made themselves available to talk on
disturbance payments if the Company wishes to do so.
The Unions are sure that the Court, while recording it
as an agreed position, also interpreted the guarantee
of location to apply to every busworker, as is stated
in the Court's final summing up in LCR9901.
(c) It is a well proven fact that without every busworker
having the guarantee of their own location, the Unions
would not have been able to obtain agreement from their
members in a ballot to allow in OPO.
(d) The Group requests the Court to ensure that LCR9901
remains as agreed and accepted by all parties and that
any depot transfers remain voluntary.
N.B.U.'s arguments:
5. (a) In order that progress could be made with regard to
negotiations on OPO, the NBU submitted a policy
document to the Company outlining its claims and
ambitions (copy also presented to the Court). Item 9
of this document clearly states that the Union
acknowledged the fact that there would be no
disturbance and that OPO would be voluntary. There is
not one sentence or word in any of the documentation
which has passed between the parties which would
suggest in any way that the Company had the right to
forcibly transfer staff from one depot to another.
(b) In January, 1985, a report was given by the manager of
Dublin City Services to the Board of C.I.E. (copy
submitted to Court). On Page 2 it is evident that item
3 with regard to the terms that had been offered for
the acceptance of OPO gives a clear cut guarantee of no
disturbance. It does not differentiate between
permanent, spare, marked-in or any other staff and
gives a clear cut guarantee that there would be no
disturbance to staff in the implementation of OPO.
(c) Over a long number of years, recruitment of staff in
Dublin City Services was based on location and when
Management wanted to recruit staff to a particular
depot, they normally employed staff from the particular
area because it was quite obvious that to do otherwise
would give rise to various complications and
difficulties particularly with regard to time keeping.
Quite a number of the staff referred to by the Company
in Clontarf Garage have gone voluntarily to work in
other garages on a day to day basis and it is important
for the Court to note under the recommendation that
these staff were entitled to, compensation for loss of
earnings where such losses accrued as a result of the
introduction of O.P.O. This compensation has now being
paid out by the Company and in order to prove
conclusively about the guarantees of staff in their own
depot, the work performed by these spare staff in other
depots was not taken into the reckoning when the
question of earnings was being computed. In fact, it
was only the earnings which they had in their own depot
which was matched against the earnings in that
particular depot prior to O.P.O.
(d) The question of spare staff in Clontarf Garage did not
arise recently. In fact, similar numbers were in
Clontarf Garage spare as far back as August of last
year. The Company was well aware of the fact that
its OPO programme in Clontarf Garage was going to lead
to this situation but nevertheless it continued
unabated even though it knew that conductors would be
in the depot and that there would be no work for them.
(e) The Union drew the Company's attention to this fact
last August when it pointed out that on the one hand
Management was paying drivers 33 and one third per cent
bonus and on the other hand had conductors in the depot
with no work for them. Nonetheless, it was the
Company's decision to continue in that manner and there
was never any suggestion that the question of transfer
of conductors would be an issue. On the 11th August,
1986, at a meeting with the Company in which issues
associated with OPO were being discussed, the Company
raised the question of the possibility of depot
transfers or what inducements could be given to
transfer. The Union made it absolutely clear at that
meeting that it would not allow any forcible transfers
of any of its members. Some staff did transfer
voluntarily but the problem which presently exists in
Clontarf Garage is of the Company's own making in that
it continued to convert routes to OPO while it was
aware that it was going to have surplus staff. It
would have been better to concentrate on some of the
other depots and have an equalisation of one person
buses depot by depot.
(f) The Union will honour the agreement but will not stand
by and see it broken. If Dublin Bus continues on the
line it is now adopting it will put an end to any
further extension of OPO. The Union believes that it
has given the Court ample proof that there was to be no
disturbance to any staff in any depot and that the
guarantees were there for all grades.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Prior to the One Person Operation agreement there was
and still is provision for the transfer of surplus
staff under the terms of clause 21 of the National
Agreement, which states -
"When redundancy occurs, the Company reserves the right
to place redundant regular staff in existing vacancies.
When an inter-depot transfer is effected due to
redundancy the employee transferred is for the purpose
of depot seniority placed after the last appointed man
in the depot to which he transfers".
(b) The One Person Operation agreement contains a guarantee
that is specific to marked in staff. Page 3, Clause 7,
paragraph C states "That the Company guarantees jobs in
their own grade in their own garages and on their own
routes for marked in drivers and marked in conductors
not engaged in One Person Operation". This Company
guarantee does not extend to non-marked in staff.
(c) The OPO agreement also provides that there be no
involuntary redundancies arising from One Person
Operation. The Company is committed to this guarantee
and in order to ensure that sufficient positions would
be available to meet this commitment it has been
restricting recruitment to hold vacancies open for
existing permanent staff. Vacant positions in any
garage must be filled by the transfer of surplus
"non-marked" staff as a failure to do so could
undermine the Company's ability to maintain this
guarantee.
(d) The costs associated with maintaining the current
surplus staff in a location in which there is no work
is approximately #7,500 per week plus the replacement
costs at overtime premium rates at other garages which
would make the total costs approximately #11,000 per
week. The Company cannot continue to sustain these
losses. No Company, and particularly a Semi-State
Company which is dependent on State subvention, can
tolerate or afford the continuation of such unnecessary
costs.
(e) The staff shortage arising from the non transfer of
surplus staff has contributed to a fall off in services
to customers.
(f) The Company considers the financial terms of the OPO
agreement for staff as extremely generous and could not
countenance or afford any further associated costs.
(g) The Company requests the Labour Court to confirm that
the Company must be free to deploy surplus "non-marked"
in staff to other locations as required, given that it
has undertaken that there would be no involuntary
redundancies arising from One Person Operation
implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that there is no provision for the compulsory
transfer of spare conductors in the agreement or Labour Court
Recommendation on OPO, and further, that the terms of the national
agreement, Clause 21, are not applicable to the present
circumstances in Clontarf.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should negotiate
an agreement to cover the new and unforseen circumstances which
have arisen having regard to the Company's need, in the interest
of efficiency, to employ all its staff as effectively as possible.
If agreement is not possible the issue should be referred back to
the Court within one month.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th July, 1987 --------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman