Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87245 Case Number: LCR11225 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - ITGWU;NATE |
Claim for compensation in respect of re-organisation at Busarus.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted and
implemented on an interim basis and that the claim be reconsidered
in the light of actual individual losses following the first full
year of implementation of the new rostering arrangements.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87245 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11225
CC8738 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11225
Parties: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of re-organisation at
Busarus.
Background:
2. This claim concerns 2 chargehands, 15 parcel attendants, 12
porters, 2 male toilet attendants and 3 female toilet attendants
employed by the Company at Busarus, Dublin.
3. In March, 1986 the Company informed the Unions that it was
necessary to carry out a re-organisation at Busarus. The
re-organisation resulted in a change of rosters. The change of
rosters eliminated regular overtime and Sunday and Public Holiday
working. It also resulted in the elimination of overtime arising
from the automatic coverage in respect of absenteeism due to
annual leave, sick leave and vacancies. The parties reached
agreement concerning the introduction of the new rosters with the
exception of the question of compensation. The new rosters were
implemented with effect from 11th January, 1987.
4. On the question of compensation the Company is offering to pay
2 times the annual loss subject to a a maximum payment of #4,000
per worker. The Unions are claiming a compensation payment of 2.50
times the annual loss and that there be a phasing arrangement to
overcome the #4,000 limit in the case of the 2 chargehands. The
Company's offer refers to regular overtime and Sunday and Public
Holiday working but the Unions' claim also refers to the
elimination of overtime in relation to automatic coverage. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 7th
January, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 10th
March, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 25th March, 1987 the
case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 23rd April,
1987.
Unions' arguments:
5. (i) The Unions' claim is justified and goes hand in hand
with the #4,000 limit quoted by the Company.
(ii) The overtime for automatic coverage is termed 'casual'
by the Company but it fell regularly to the workers
concerned and was also guaranteed by agreement reached
in 1984 when previous rationalisation had taken place.
(iii) The loss of rostered overtime and 'casual' overtime are
two separate items and as such compensation needs to be
made in separate payments to avoid the injustice of a
#4,000 limit being used against the workers. This can
be clearly seen in the case of the chargehands where
the Company's offer of only twice the loss of rostered
overtime has already reached the #4,000 limit.
(iv) The savings to the Company from this re-organisation
are colossal and estimated by the Unions to be in
excess of #100,000
(v) The flexibilities necessitated by the change of rosters
have not entailed any productivity payments which are
paid in other areas. The workers are being dealt a
double blow by not being compensated for loss of
automatic coverage.
(vi) The Labour Court has previously recommended
compensation for workers in the Company at 2.50 times
annual loss (Labour Court Recommendation No. 9907
refers).
(vii) The Company are offering compensation at 2.50 times
annual loss to Dublin bus workers for loss of overtime
as a result of one person operation. In the
circumstances the Unions' claim should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) There has been a serious fall-off in business at
Busarus since 1982 while wage costs have been
increased. The Company must reduce the losses
currently being incurred at Busarus. The changes of
roster which have been implemented were introduced in
an effort to reduce the loss-making situation and to
secure the jobs of the staff currently employed there.
(b) The new rosters conform, in the main, to those formerly
in operation in Busarus except that rostered overtime
has been eliminated and the members rostered for duty
on Sundays and Public Holidays have been reduced.
(c) Concession of the Unions' claim could not be justified
as this would merely increase the losses. The Labour
Court recommended 2 times annual loss for workers in
two cases concerning change of rosters (Appeals
Decision No. 74 of 1986 and Labour Court Recommendation
No. 10704 refers).
(d) Annual leave relief overtime is not rostered or
allocated to specific individuals and, notwithstanding
the elimination of automatic coverage of absenteeism
including annual leave, there was no guarantee that the
same men who worked annual leave relief shifts on
overtime last year would do so again this year. Also,
there is every possibility of annual leave relief
working being required this year and subsequent years
and so the actual reduction of such relief working over
a two year period could not be determined until the end
of 1988. Furthermore, it is not customary to pay
compensation in respect of casual overtime earnings on
relief duties resulting from annual leave, illness,
vacancies or other absences.
(e) The maximum amount of compensation paid in respect of
loss of earnings to any member of the staff is #4,000
and this figure has been accepted by the trade unions
in respect of other road passenger operative grades
such as bus drivers and conductors.
(g) The Company does not pay compensation for loss of
earnings brought about by changes due to loss of
business and this principle has been supported by the
Court in the past (Recommendation Nos. 5469, 8048,
8915, 9084 and 9939 and Appeals Decision No. 98 of 1985
refers). In this instance, the Company offered to pay
compensation at twice the annual loss because of the
re-organisation element involved in changing 11 of the
staff from a 6 to a 5 day week and eliminating shift
working for them.
(h) The rosters as introduced do not offer substantial
savings.
(i) Concession of the Unions' claims would have
repercussive effects and would worsen the situation for
the Company in Busarus. It would ultimately create job
losses.
(j) In a climate of increased competition from private
hauliers and the proposed liberalisation of transport
in the Government White Paper every effort must be made
by the Company to be competitive and reduce its losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted and
implemented on an interim basis and that the claim be reconsidered
in the light of actual individual losses following the first full
year of implementation of the new rostering arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_________________________
Chairman.
5th June, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.