Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86997 Case Number: LCR11017 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CIE - and - MR. MCLOUGHNEY |
Dispute concerning (i) the removal of a reprimand, (ii) removal of a reprimand and overtime duties restored, (iii) have a suspension removed, (iv) the payment of wages direct to the worker's bank account and (v) an issue concerning one-person-operation (O.P.O.) bus.
Recommendation:
5. On issues (i), (ii) and (iii) for reasons given to the
parties the Court does not at this time consider it appropriate to
make recommendations.
On the matter of payment by bank transfer the Court notes that the
worker concerned is treated in exactly the same way as other
workers in similar circumstances due to the limitations of the
computer facilities and does not therefore recommend concession of
this claim.
O.P.O. - The Court accepts that the worker concerned was treated
in accordance with the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No.
9901 and does not therefore recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86997 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11017
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11017
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning (i) the removal of a reprimand, (ii)
removal of a reprimand and overtime duties restored, (iii) have a
suspension removed, (iv) the payment of wages direct to the
worker's bank account and (v) an issue concerning
one-person-operation (O.P.O.) bus.
Background:
2. The worker, who is employed by C.I.E. as a bus driver in
Clontarf garage commenced employment with them in December 1971.
He resigned from his employment on 2nd April, 1972 and following
application he was re-employed on 18th March, 1973. On various
dates between December, 1984 and June, 1986 three incidents
occurred between the worker and other fellow workers, as a result
of which he received two reprimands, lost overtime duty, and
received a suspension. In May, 1986, the worker requested that
his wages be paid direct into his bank account. The Company
refused as it conidered it was not possible under the
circumstances to accede to this request. The worker is also in
dispute with the Company on the issue of O.P.O. of double deck and
large capacity single deck buses. The worker claims that he was
forced to carry out certain duties contrary to the agreement
reached between the unions involved and the Company based on
Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901. The Company reject this
claim. The worker requested a Rights Commissioner's investigation
into the issues. The Company refused to attend a Rights
Commissioner's hearing. The worker then sought a Labour Court
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, and before the investigation undertook to
accept the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing
was held on 30th January, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
3. (a) The worker was not allowed to make his own submissions
concerning the alleged incidents at the appeal hearings
under the Company and disputes procedures.
Consequently he considers that his case was not
adequately dealt with.
(b) The Company, despite many requests, has failed to pay
his wages direct to his bank account, despite the fact
it is common practice among many of his fellow workers
to have this facility afforded to them.
(c) The Company introduced o.p.o. on the worker's assigned
route in breach of the guarantees given that o.p.o.
would not be introduced without the workers' voluntary
participation in the system. While the worker signed
forms issued by the Company regarding the introduction
of o.p.o. he was indicating his preferences on the
options available and was in no way making any
commitments in the matter.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The worker's case has been dealt with through the
Company's internal disciplinary machinery which is an
agreed procedure with the unions. The procedure is
in existence since 1948 and has stood the test of
time. The Appeals Board is regarded by all parties
dealing with it to be fair and reasonable in its
dealings.
(ii) In regard to the "Banking Issue", the Company does
not consider that the costs involved in catering for
"special" accounts of the type in the worker's
particular case on the computerised wages credit
transfer system are justified and in the particular
circumstances it is considered it would be a simple
matter for him to make a weekly bank lodgment of
wages himself.
(iii) In regard to the one-person-operation issue, the
Company has acted fairly and in accordance with
Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901 and the trade
union agreements on this matter. Commitments had
been made at the time to the other staff on Route 30
and the Company was obliged to honour these
commitments. The worker changed his mind about
one-person-operation when it was too late and he
never at any stage stated that he wished to retire
early on voluntary severance. He made enquiries
about his entitlements under the voluntary severance
scheme but did not consider it to be of any financial
benefit to him.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On issues (i), (ii) and (iii) for reasons given to the
parties the Court does not at this time consider it appropriate to
make recommendations.
On the matter of payment by bank transfer the Court notes that the
worker concerned is treated in exactly the same way as other
workers in similar circumstances due to the limitations of the
computer facilities and does not therefore recommend concession of
this claim.
O.P.O. - The Court accepts that the worker concerned was treated
in accordance with the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No.
9901 and does not therefore recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
__26th__February,__1987. __________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman