Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87588 Case Number: LCR11385 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - TSSA |
Claim on behalf of salaried staff for disturbance payment in respect of a transfer from Broadstone to Bus Arus.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87588 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11385
CC87299 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11385
Parties: BUS EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of salaried staff for disturbance payment in
respect of a transfer from Broadstone to Bus Arus.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the Dublin Area Schools
Transport Section. In January, 1987 prior to the setting up of
the subsidiary companies under the Transport (Re-organisation of
C.I.E.) Act, 1986 it was decided to transfer the section from
Broadstone to Bus Arus as there was spare office accommodation
available there following the transfer of the former Area Road
Passenger Manager's Office in September, 1986. A meeting was held
between the Company and the Association on 29th January, 1987 to
discuss the transfer. At the meeting the Association lodged a
claim for disturbance compensation which was quantified at #70 for
the first five years of service and #9.50 for each completed year
thereafter. This claim was subsequently rejected by the Company.
The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 18th February, 1987. A conciliation conference was held
on 1st April, 1987. As no progress was possible both parties
agreed to referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 29th July, 1987. A Court hearing was held on
13th August, 1987.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The Company transferred the Dublin Area Schools
Transport section from Broadstone to Bus Arus in order
to effect efficiencies which would reduce costs and
lead to savings for the Company. The productivity
agreement for clerical and executive workers provides
for the payment of disturbance allowance in certain
circumstances. It is the Association's contention that
the circumstances of this transfer fall within the
scope of the productivity agreement and accordingly the
workers should be paid disturbance allowance as per
that agreement.
(b) When the new legislation was passed setting up the
subsidiary companies in C.I.E. provision was made for
the protection of the workers rates of pay and
conditions of employment when they transferred from
C.I.E. to the new companies. Accordingly the terms of
the productivity agreement are protected by that
legislation.
(c) Disturbance allowance agreements are universal and are
applicable to all clerical workers relocated as per the
schedule in appendix A of the productivity agreement.
The question of where workers are domiciled is not
relevant in that context.
(d) The Company contends that the Ministerial Order
embargoing payments of disturbance allowance in the
Public Service prevents the payments of such an
allowance in this situation. However the Company has
paid disturbance allowance to other categories of
workers in certain given circumstances.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The offices vacated by the staff in Broadstone have
been taken over by a Bus Eireann head office department
which stems directly from the Government decision to
re-structure C.I.E. and is consequently not dissimilar
to the claim investigated by the Court in respect of
the staff transferring to North Wall and for which no
disturbance compensation was awarded.
(ii) The Minister for the Public Service has placed an
embargo on the payment of such compensation.
(iii) The offer by C.I.E. to pay disturbance compensation to
the engineering staff transferring from Broadstone to
Inchicore was justified because it involved a major
scheme of re-organisation (including early retirements
of staff on grounds of redundancy) and genuine
inconvenience was caused to staff;
(iv) The transfer of the School Transport Office meant in
the majority of cases less inconvenience in travelling
to and from work and the facilities attached to working
in a city centre location are now much closer to hand
and on the merits of the case on this point alone,
compensation cannot be justified especially in view of
Labour Court Recommendation No. 11005 of 12th February,
1987.
(v) The costs of operating the Schools Transport Scheme
must be contained and reduced in real terms especially
at the present time in view of the real threat from
private bus operators to take over the operation of
this service.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
Deputy Chairman
3rd September, 1987
M.D./J.C.