Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88192 Case Number: LCR11827 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting that the loss of overtime arose from the introduction
of a new fleet with resultant reduction in annual maintenance, and
also noting that the claimant continues to work some overtime does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88192 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11827
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
During the 1960's CIE introduced an annual road passenger fleet
survey to establish the body condition of each road passenger
vehicle in the fleet, the results of which were used to prepare
and implement an overhaul plan. The worker concerned is a
maintenance planner and in the course of carrying out this survey
work was paid overtime due to travel, etc. New buses were
introduced in the early 1980's and as the road passenger fleet was
renewed the annual survey was discontinued. In December, 1983 the
worker submitted a claim for loss of earnings which was rejected
by the Company in January, 1984. In April, 1985, the Union on
behalf of the worker requested discussions on the matter,
correspondence was exchanged during 1985 and 1986 and on 31st
July, 1986 a meeting took place following which further
correspondence was exchanged. The Union claimed that on the basis
of years ending 5th April, 1983, 1984 and 1985 the worker had
suffered a loss in earnings of just over £2,000 per annum in 1984
and 1985 compared to 1983, the Company again did not concede the
claim. In March, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 2nd September, 1987 (earliest date suitable) at which no
progress was made and the matter was subsequently referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 7th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker holds the position of maintenance planner
(details supplied to the Court). In 1973 the worker
transferred to railway work for three years, on the
expectation that he would secure an improved grading. In
1976 he returned to Broadstone and the indications were
that his position would probably be regraded as some of
the fleet survey work undertaken in the provincial
locations was to be centralised in Broadstone. In 1978
this centralisation was implemented and the first total
survey was undertaken by this worker and two assistants
under his control. As a result of this there was
significant increases in both the workers income and
responsibilities.
3. 2. When the fleet survey work was discontinued the worker
suffered a significant loss in earnings. It is estimated
that the worker suffered a loss of £2,000 per annum in
1984 and 1985 compared to 1983. When the fleet survey
work was centralised it was agreed in direct negotiations
that two workshop foremen in the Limerick Garage who had
previously carried out work in that area would be paid
compensation of £550 and £450. The worker concerned here,
justifiably also seeks compensation and if the Company had
dealt with this matter in a more straightforward manner,
it is probable that this case too could have been settled
by subsequent direct negotiations with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has invested in a new fleet of buses which now
comprise two thirds of the overall fleet. These require
less body overhaul work because of their construction and
this coupled with more efficient garage body maintenance
procedures has eliminated the need for an annual on the
ground inspection of buses. While this has resulted in a
reduction in the amount of overtime available to the
worker, he has worked varying amounts of overtime since
and this is continuing. Overtime in the Company is not
guaranteed and employees only work overtime when it is
authorised and available.
2. The Company is in a serious financial situation and it has
been necessary to re-examine all areas of expenditure in
order to reduce costs and ensure the viability of its
operations. In the past the Labour Court has not
recommended payment for loss of earnings in situations
where the loss arose from loss of business or due to the
difficult financial situation within the Company (details
supplied to the Court). Concession of this claim would
also have serious repercussive effects within the Company.
In the circumstances compensation should not be paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting that the loss of overtime arose from the introduction
of a new fleet with resultant reduction in annual maintenance, and
also noting that the claimant continues to work some overtime does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___28th___April,___1988. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman