Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88154 Case Number: LCR11799 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION;ICTU ROAD PASSENGER GROUP |
Claim seeking the appointment to the Company's regular staff of 32 temporary conductors, recruited in March/April, 1987.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that the Company's failure to appoint
conductors after twelve months' satisfactory service would be a
breach of the terms agreed for One Person Operation. The Court
recommends that this matter be dealt with under the Viability Plan
and that in the meantime the OPO Agreement should be honoured.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88154 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11799
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
ICTU ROAD PASSENGER GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim seeking the appointment to the Company's regular staff
of 32 temporary conductors, recruited in March/April, 1987.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the implementation of the OPO programme in Dublin,
there arose a shortage of conductors due to many in that grade
being trained as drivers. By February, 1987, the Company
estimated that approximately 40 conducting vacancies existed and
sought to transfer surplus conductors in Clontarf Depot to fill
these vacancies (the surplus in Clontarf arose because of a faster
rate of changever to OPO than in other depots). However, as
agreement could not be reached with the Unions at that time the
Company informed them by letter on the 13th February, that it
would be necessary to proceed with the recruitment of temporary
short term conductors on a three-month contract (the Company has
always had to employ temporary staff who if they wished could stay
on and become permanent following a satisfactory probationary
period of twelve months). On the 15th May, 1987, in agreement
with the Unions, it was decided to extend these contracts for a
further three months and they were later further extended to the
28th November, 1987. The conductors are currently employed on a
week to week basis (expected to continue until May/June, 1988).
The Unions are claiming that these workers should now be made
permanent in the normal way as is provided for in Clause 1.7 of
LCR9901. Management reject this as it is contrary to its policy
of no longer recruiting permanent conducting staff since the
introduction of OPO. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 29th May, 1987, but no
agreement was reached at a conference on the 17th November
(earliest suitable date) and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on the 25th March, 1988.
ICTU GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is seeking to re-introduce term contract
workers under the guise of One-Person Operators. It has
stated that "the Company cannot recruit bus conductors on a
longer term basis while other bus conductors are leaving the
Board's service on voluntary severance". In some depots,
conductors let go under voluntary severance have had their
duties suppressed and have not been replaced. The current
term contract conductors have been employed to replace people
leaving the service under natural wastage and have been sent
to the depots where voluntary severance was not progressing.
2. In a letter to the Unions, dated the 29th February,
1988, the Company stated that some of the claimants (named)
would be entitled to annual leave as well as six rail passes
per annum in the event of them completing twelve months
continuous service. The provision of these rail passes has
always been strictly reserved for appointed staff and the
normal temporary staff who failed to achieve appointment prior
to their annual holidays after twelve months service were
steadfastly refused passes. Now it seems the Company can
state that it will not appoint the claimants but will give
them the facilities that go with appointment.
3. It is the Group's contention that under LCR9901 all
conductors recruited must be open to appointment in the normal
manner and that those currently employed with twelve months
service must be appointed immediately. Failure to do this
must be seen as another in a long series of attempts by the
Company to breach, without negotiation, the guarantees
achieved by LCR9901. The Court must, as it has done in the
past, advise the Company of its commitments under LCR9901 and
recommend that it implement these commitments until it has
agreement with the Unions to do otherwise.
N.B.U'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants have operated under very difficult
circumstances during the last twelve months. They have
transferred willingly to other depots without question, have
operated on various routes and have engaged in late weekend
working. The Company is presently, through a Viability Plan,
trying to reduce the number of staff, something which is
normally done through voluntary severance. The Union will not
allow these workers to be put out of a job and is asking the
Court to recommend that they should be appointed to the
regular establishment.
2. In time, the Company will need staff such as these.
While the Union is negotiating a Viability Plan, it certainly
would not have been its intention to allow a development to
take place whereby these staff would be dispensed with without
question. The Union will not object to the Court recommending
that this matter should be dealt with under the Viability
Plan.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As a result of the OPO Agreement and the Company's
expectation of achieving 50% OPO by the end of 1987, the
Company assumed that there would be no need to recruit
conductors. Indeed, if the forty-four spare conductors in
Clontarf had transferred to other depots in March, 1987, there
would have been no need to recruit at that time. However,
shortages did exist in other garages and in order to provide
the scheduled services at these locations it was necessary to
recruit thirty-two temporary conductors.
2. The staff recruited were informed at the interview stage
that there was no question of them being appointed to the
regular staff of the Company and they were well aware of the
conditions under which they were employed. This advice was
given to them on a further three occasions when they were
invited to renew their contracts.
3. The Company only recently announced its Viability Plan
and negotiations are currently taking place with the Trade
unions. One of the main points of the Plan is to increase the
present level of 30% OPO to 75%. This will mean that a high
proportion of regular conducting staff will be released under
the voluntary severance terms provided in LCR 9901 and
subsequently the temporary conductors will be released as soon
as possible.
4. The Unions will argue that in LCR 9901, paragraph 7(e),
the Company agreed that ".......... temporary drivers and
conductors will continue to be appointed in the normal
manner". The Company have continued to appoint temporary
drivers and conductors who were in employment prior to the OPO
Agreement of January, 1986. This clause did not refer to
staff recruited on short term contracts after that date.
5. The OPO Agreement also provided in paragraph 7(f), that
the training of conductors would be stepped up to ensure, as
far as possible, that vacancies for drivers would be filled in
the normal way from the conducting grade. The Company did
step up its training programme for conductors to ensure that
there would be adequate cover for vacancies created by drivers
going on voluntary severance in order to avoid the vacancies
being filled from outside the Company (details supplied to the
Court).
5. 6. The Company never at any stage indicated to the
contracted temporary conductors that they would be appointed
to the regular staff. In fact, it was prepared to release
them at the end of June 1987, but the Unions requested that
the Company renew their contracts for a further period of time
rather than employ new staff on a temporary basis. The
Company at that time agreed reluctantly but reiterated to the
Unions that there was no question of them being appointed to
the regular staff.
7. The Company has no intention of recruiting conductors in
the future as it is not logical to recruit bus conductors on a
long term basis while other conductors are leaving the Board's
service on voluntary retirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds that the Company's failure to appoint
conductors after twelve months' satisfactory service would be a
breach of the terms agreed for One Person Operation. The Court
recommends that this matter be dealt with under the Viability Plan
and that in the meantime the OPO Agreement should be honoured.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
19th April, 1988 --------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman