Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87495 Case Number: LCR11346 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - CIE SHOP WORKERS GROUP |
Dispute concerning the proposal by the Company to reduce shift cover.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court does not
consider the replacement of the shift mechanic to be necessary for
the safe or efficient operation of the garage. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87495 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11346
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11346
Parties: BUS EIREANN
and
CIE SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the proposal by the Company to reduce shift
cover.
Background:
2. This matter directly concerns mechanics employed by the
Company at Dundalk garage. There were four mechanics employed
shift work. However in May, 1987 when one of the shift mechanics
retired the Company proposed not to replace the worker and to
reduce the number of mechanics on shift to three. This was not
acceptable to the Union. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 22nd May, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 19th June, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 22nd June, 1987 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 8th July, 1987 in Dundalk.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Drogheda garage closed in 1984 and the staff
concerned were transferred to Dundalk. This was
described at the time as a move which would consolidate
employment in Dundalk. Despite the non-replacement of
a number of staff who have retired since then, the
Company proposes to cut shift numbers even further.
This is unacceptable.
(ii) Under the Company's proposal, the shift mechanic could
be the only person in the garage. This has very
serious implications for safety, and is considered to
be an unsafe working practice. The Company should
maintain a shift staffing which is consistent with safe
working practice.
(iii) The Company has embarked upon a policy of having
Company vehicles maintained in outside garages. These
garages are non-union and by giving them work in these
circumstances, the Company is breaching long-standing
practice in C.I.E. of union labour. At meetings with
local management, the Unions have requested that the
garages concerned be requested to produce C2 revenue
clearance certificates in order to dispel certain
doubts which exist regarding their compliance with PAYE
and PRSI requirements. As of the time of writing (26th
June, 1987) no such certificates have been produced.
(iv) Dundalk garage covers a wide area as far as Monaghan
and Drogheda. The shift mechanics provide a necessary
service. In winter months, when there is a requirement
to start buses early in remote locations, the proposed
manning levels will seriously impair the capacity of
the garage to maintain output.
(v) The Company is already saving approximately #15000 per
annum by the non-replacement of the worker. It is the
view of the Unions that this non-replacement
represents a sufficient sacrifice on the part of the
workforce. For all these reasons, we would ask the
Court to recommend that the shift manning level in
Dundalk be maintained at four.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Unnecessary expenditure on maintenance affects the
Company's competitiveness in the road passenger
transport market in times of strong competition from
private operators;
(b) The Company has to achieve competitive maintenance
charges to ensure continued maintenance of the road
freight fleet for Iarnrod Eireann in the Dundalk and
Drogheda areas;
(c) Costs of operating the Schools Transport Scheme must be
contained and reduced in real terms and this includes
the cost of servicing and repairing the school buses;
(d) The fall in the number of vehicles over the years and
the introduction of new buses has led to a reduced
dependence for shift repair work;
(e) No employee is losing his job as a result of the change
which is being introduced to help protect the
employment of the maintenance staff in the garage;
(f) The staff remaining on the shift roster will not offer
any loss of earnings or deterioration in their
conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court does not
consider the replacement of the shift mechanic to be necessary for
the safe or efficient operation of the garage. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
28th July, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.