Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88761 Case Number: LCR12176 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the payment of the non-participating bonus to conductors employed after January, 1986.
Recommendation:
6. The Court considers that there is merit in both sides'
arguments on this question of interpretation.
Moreover it was not envisaged at the time of the OPO agreement
that this situation would arise.
However, the Company is seeking to make the exception by excluding
the claimants from payment of the allowance and the onus must rest
on it to justify it. The Court does not find that the Company can
point to any justification in the agreement for the exclusion.
The Court, therefore, finds in favour of the Union's
interpretation and recommends accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88761 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12176
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of the non-participating bonus to
conductors employed after January, 1986.
BACKGROUND:
2. As a result of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR9901 which
dealt with the implementation of One Person Operation (OPO), bus
crews remaining on two person operation were conceded a
"non-participating bonus" to compensate them for the delay in
converting to OPO. The bonus is dependent on the level of
conversion reached.
3. Due to the slow conversion of routes to OPO the Company
recruited thirty six temporary conductors between March and
August, 1987. Their initial three month contracts were extended
to twelve months and, as a result of LCR11799, they were appointed
to the regular staff. Subsequently the Union sought the payment
of the non-participating bonus to these workers. The Company
considered they were not entitled to it as they had been employed
subsequent to January, 1986 when OPO was introduced and rejected
the claim. As no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for a settlement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 20th September, 1988 and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court investigation into the dispute was held on 18th November,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In clause 4 of the Court's Recommendation on OPO the
Court altered the method of payment to non-participating crews
to maintain equality of rates between garages. The Union
assumed that the recommendation was being correctly applied to
all staff and it was only because of enquiries by members that
this matter came to light.
2. The Company has refused to pay this allowance to the
conductors concerned on the basis that they were not employed
by the Company at the time of the OPO agreement. Yet all
agreements on rates, shift, Sunday bonus etc and the other
recommendation of LCR9901 apply to these workers, all of which
were negotiated and agreed before the workers were employed.
4. 3. The Company attempted to let these workers go from its
employment but the Court ruled, in LCR11799, that LCR9901 does
apply to them by recommending their appointment to the regular
staff.
4. Several of the workers have applied for driver training
under clause 1.8 of Recommendation LCR9901. If the
non-participating allowance was not to apply to these workers
the Union could not but advise them not to undertake driver
training in case the 331/3% bonus would not apply either.
5. All drivers and conductors in the Company enjoy equality
in all respects with only three exceptions (details supplied
to the Court). Each of these items is fully documented and is
deliberately written down as an exception because it has
always been custom and practice that all agreements apply
fully to new entrants unless otherwise stated. The Union can
see no grounds for any change in this instance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is adamant that Clause 4 of LCR9901 applies
only to staff who were in employment prior to the signing of
the LCR9901 agreement. The purpose of the Clause was to
provide an incentive for the existing staff who were opposed
to OPO or who did not wish to operate on an OPO basis. It was
never envisaged by the unions or management that it would
apply to staff recruited after that date.
2. The workers concerned were aware when they were
recruited that their employment was of a temporary nature due
to the progression of OPO. The Company, in complying with
LCR11799 by appointing these workers, have given them the
opportunity of full time employment. They could not expect
the allowance payments because of their awareness of the
Company's objective to convert 75% of its services to OPO.
The Company has treated these workers fairly in the
circumstances.
3. The principle of different allowance levels for bus
crews depending on the date of recruitment is well established
(details supplied).
4. The Company recently introduced a Viability Plan because
of its severe financial difficulties and reduced Government
subvention and cannot entertain claims of this nature which
are substantial and are not provided for in the agreement
reached in LCR9901.
5. The Company will again be recruiting drivers in the near
future and if this claim was to be conceded it would be
precedent setting in that the staff recruited would have to be
paid the non-participation allowance as they would be
operating two person services initially.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court considers that there is merit in both sides'
arguments on this question of interpretation.
Moreover it was not envisaged at the time of the OPO agreement
that this situation would arise.
However, the Company is seeking to make the exception by excluding
the claimants from payment of the allowance and the onus must rest
on it to justify it. The Court does not find that the Company can
point to any justification in the agreement for the exclusion.
The Court, therefore, finds in favour of the Union's
interpretation and recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st December, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman