Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88171 Case Number: LCR11794 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION;I.C.T.U. ROAD PASSENGER GROUP |
Claim on behalf of approximately 41 rehabilitated staff for the payment of the Non-Participating Allowance (NPA) provided for under the terms of LCR9901.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having regard to its policy as outlined in its
Report to the Minister for Labour, dated the 22nd December, 1981,
and to the nature of the particular payment, recommends that those
claimants who were once part of the driving and conducting staff
should be paid the non-participation bonus with effect from the
1st January, 1988.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88171 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
I.C.T.U. ROAD PASSENGER GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 41 rehabilitated staff for
the payment of the Non-Participating Allowance (NPA) provided for
under the terms of LCR9901.
BACKGROUND:
2. Rehabilitated staff in Bus Atha Cliath are ex drivers and
conductors who for health reasons are no longer able to perform
the duties applicable to these grades and who are now employed in
less onerous and stressful conditions. The Unions lodged a claim
for the payment of the NPA to these staff (currently
£7.20 per week) but this was rejected by Management. As no local
level agreement was found the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 2nd November,
1987. A conciliation conference on the 22nd January, 1988, failed
to resolve the matter and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 24th February,
1988. A Court hearing was held on the 25th March, 1988.
ICTU'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff re-settled into rehabilitated positions suffer a
loss of earnings as most of these jobs carry nothing other
than a basic rate. It is a double blow to these staff that in
addition to loss of shift and Sunday pay etc., they now also
lose the non-participating bonus even though they may remain
in garages and are not participating in OPO.
2. Ironically, a number of these staff (e.g. ticket office
attendants) have suffered an increased work load in their new
grades as a result of OPO and have received no increase for
this. The cost of concession of this claim is relatively
small and would go some way towards righting the
afore-mentioned anomalies.
N.B.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim is quite justified on the grounds that these
workers have given a lifetime of service, either as drivers or
conductors, and, but for the fact of ill-health, would have
either been in a position to earn the various bonuses that go
with OPO or to get a payment for non-participating.
4. 2. In 1980, when the Labour Court made a recommendation
regarding busworkers' wages, the same payment was made to
rehabilitated staff as was made to conductors and drivers. It
should also be remembered that if the claimants were not doing
these jobs then the Company would have to employ others to do
them.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Almost all the staff concerned were employed as bus
drivers or conductors but were not able to carry out their
normal duties under the terms for which they were employed
because of health problems. The staff concerned would
normally have been dismissed under the Board's Welfare Scheme
after a period of time (up to a maximum of 2½ years) had the
Company not provided them with the rehabilitation positions
which they are now engaged in. The staff concerned do not
enjoy good health and the Company is conscious of this. As a
result normal work performance is not expected of them.
2. Before accepting the rehabilitated jobs the staff
concerned were well aware of the rates of pay they would have
in their new positions. These rates are comparable with those
of conductors and drivers (details supplied to the Court).
These employees were also aware that they would not be
included for bonuses which bus crews have, such as shift
allowance, night bonus, car differential, OPO bonus or
compensatory allowance for loss of Sunday work and the more
recent non-participating allowance. The duties for which they
are engaged are very light and vary between messenger, ticket
office assistants, cash office porters and security. Also
these duties have not changed as a result of the introduction
of OPO.
3. The cost of conceding this claim would be approximately
£18,000 per annum. However, this figure would increase
substantially as OPO conversion progresses.
4. L.C.R. 9901 Appendix 8(4) provides for this allowance to
be paid to non-participating bus crews and did not intend it
to be paid to staff in any other areas of employment within
Bus Atha Cliath. It was never envisaged that a claim would be
received on behalf of these staff. Indeed, the Unions for
their part did not, at any stage during the negotation of the
OPO Agreement, refer to the rehabilitated staff other than to
say that the Company would continue its policy in relation to
them.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having regard to its policy as outlined in its
Report to the Minister for Labour, dated the 22nd December, 1981,
and to the nature of the particular payment, recommends that those
claimants who were once part of the driving and conducting staff
should be paid the non-participation bonus with effect from the
1st January, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
14th April, 1988 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman