Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86932 Case Number: LCR11151 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CIE - and - NBU;ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the proposed introduction of one person operated double-deck and large capacity single-deck buses in City services, in the provincial cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
Recommendation:
4. The Court recognises that while there are differences in the
operation of OPO in the various locations, they are not such as
would warrant a departure from the basic terms of LCR9901. The
Court considers that the conditions applying in Dublin should
therefore be accepted in the provincial locations subject to
appropriate variation to suit local conditions in the four
provincial cities. The Court has made its recommendations on that
basis.
In addition to the fact that there is some integration of
provincial and city services, the main difference between the
operation of OPO in Dublin and elsewhere is that there will, for a
period, be dual operation in the provincial cities. This is
necessary because of the smaller scale of operation but it should
not act as a disadvantage to drivers and conductors who will, as
in Dublin, be free to opt for OPO or not.
The Court sets out it's detailed recommendations on issues common
to all four locations and on each location separately thereafter.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86932 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11151
CC86925 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11151
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed introduction of one person
operated double-deck and large capacity single-deck buses in City
services, in the provincial cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and
Waterford.
Background:
2. Labour Court Recommendation 9901, issued in July, 1985, with
subsequent clarification and additional settlement proposals which
the Court made in January, 1986, 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. In paragraph 16 of LCR9901, the Court strongly
recommended that the proposals as recommended should be accepted
for Dublin and as a blueprint for the other cities.
Subsequent to this recommendation and agreement, the Company
and the Unions held a number of meetings to discuss the
introduction of OPO in the four major provincial cities.
Following failure to reach agreement at local level, the Company
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 23rd May, 1986. Several conciliation conferences
were held in both Dublin and the provincial cities. Following a
request from the Unions, the Company, by letter dated 30th July,
1986, submitted detailed proposals for the introduction of OPO to
the provincial cities (details supplied to Court). Both Unions
rejected these proposals and as no agreement could be reached at a
further conciliation conference, held on the 21st October, the
Company requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Labour Court met with
the parties on the 1st December, 1986, and it was agreed that it
would investigate the dispute by way of hearings held centrally in
Dublin and locally in the provincial cities. Hearings were
subsequently held in Limerick and Galway on the 20th and 21st of
January, and in Cork and Waterford on the 12th and 13th February,
1987. A final central hearing was held in Dublin on the 24th
February, 1987.
Issues:
3. The issues in dispute arise from differences in operating
conditions in the provincial cities compared with those in Dublin.
City bus services and provincial services operate from the same
depot (there is only one depot in each of the cities concerned).
In the negotiations with the Unions, the Company's proposals have
been based on applying the terms recommended by the Labour Court
in LCR9901 directly in accordance with the degree to which staff
are involved or affected.
There are several issues in dispute which are common to all four
cities (national issues) and there are also issues specific to one
or more of the areas (local issues). The main national issues can
be summarised as follows:
a) Because staff operate on both city and provincial services,
from the same depot, the Unions' want allowances (specifically
non-participating allowance) to be paid to all staff,
irrespective of the length of time spent on city work. This
is rejected by Management.
b) The Company propose to pay 33 1/3% bonus on large capacity
single-deck and double-deck routes only, but as some of the
city routes in the provinces are covered by provincial buses,
the Unions want routes rather than vehicles to attract the
rate.
c) The Unions are claiming that conversion payments should apply
to spare staff but the Company rejects this on the basis that
an OPO duty must be implemented before a conversion payment
can be made.
d) The Company want to maintain the standard working week at
forty hours. However, where a five day week operates or is
introduced, the maximum weekly average will be kept within 38
hours 10 minutes. The Unions, however, want the overall time
on existing boards to be maintained at their present levels
and that, irrespective of the number of days worked, the
principle of 38 hours 10 minutes be written into the
agreement.
e) The Company is not willing to extend the payment of half the
contributions to the Income Continuance Plan for provincial
staff, irrespective of whether or not their Boards include
some city trips.
f) Management are unwilling to provide drop safes in buses but
will examine alternative arrangements for cashing in money.
The Unions want time allowed for paying in during shift if
drop safes are not to be provided.
g) The National Busworkers' Union has made a number of additional
claims including uncertified sick leave, meal allowances,
contraction of annual leave periods, penalty clause on special
leave, and the provision of early/late staff buses. All of
these are considered by Management to be inappropriate to the
issue of OPO and have been rejected.
Recommendation:
4. The Court recognises that while there are differences in the
operation of OPO in the various locations, they are not such as
would warrant a departure from the basic terms of LCR9901. The
Court considers that the conditions applying in Dublin should
therefore be accepted in the provincial locations subject to
appropriate variation to suit local conditions in the four
provincial cities. The Court has made its recommendations on that
basis.
In addition to the fact that there is some integration of
provincial and city services, the main difference between the
operation of OPO in Dublin and elsewhere is that there will, for a
period, be dual operation in the provincial cities. This is
necessary because of the smaller scale of operation but it should
not act as a disadvantage to drivers and conductors who will, as
in Dublin, be free to opt for OPO or not.
The Court sets out it's detailed recommendations on issues common
to all four locations and on each location separately thereafter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
8th May, 1987 ---------------
DH/PG Chairman