Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88829 Case Number: LCR12190 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dismissal of temporary conductors.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the recruitment of conductors on fixed
term contracts in Summer 1988 was not a breach of LCR11799. The
OPO agreement provided that conductors already recruited would be
appointed after twelve months service and did not envisage that
any further recruitment of conductors would occur. It is not
therefore relevant to the circumstances of the present dispute.
It was however a breach of established custom and practice and as
such the Company should have attempted to get the unions'
agreement before it introduced the new type of contract. If the
issue had been referred to the Court at that stage, it is likely
that the Court would have found the Company's proposal to be
reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88829 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dismissal of temporary conductors.
BACKGROUND:
2. During June and July, 1988 the Company recruited approximately
100 temporary conductors, mostly school leavers or students, to
provide for annual leave relief. These workers signed contracts
which indicated that their employment would cease on or before 1st
October, 1988. Most of these recruited had resigned before the
expiry date of their contracts and the Company gave the remainder
seven days notice advising them that their contracts expired on
1st October. They were subsequently released on that date. The
Union had raised the matter on 6th September requesting that the
workers be allowed remain until they left voluntarily as was
normal procedure but the Company had confirmed they would be
released. The Union subsequently referred the matter to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court but the Company declined
an invitation to attend a conciliation conference as the workers
concerned were no longer employed by the Company. The Union,
therefore, referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 5th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of a dispute in 1982 the Company conceded
that anyone employed during the summer months would be free to
remain after the holiday period and go on to be appointed if
he/she so desired. However, the Company, without any
consultation with the Union, had all temporary conductors
employed for the 1988 summer season sign a contract containing
a termination date. The Company then dismissed any remaining
workers against their will on the termination date.
2. The Company, by not retaining these workers in
employment, is in breach of LCR11799 which dealt with the
recruitment of temporary conductros.
3. The Union indicated its willingness to go to the Labour
Court in the matter but insisted that its members be retained
in employment in the meantime. However, the Company went
ahead and dismissed the workers without any further
discussions with the Union.
3. 4. The Company failed to deal with this matter under the
Viability Plan as they agreed to do and despite the Union's
expressed willingness to do so. The Company further broke the
terms of the peace clause in the Plan when, despite the
Union's stated position of 6th September, they took action and
dismissed these workers. The Company's attitude to procedures
generally and to the Labour Court over the past year has not
been conducive to good industrial relations (details
supplied). The Union is very concerned about the contempt
being shown for procedure by the Company.
5. Four conductors who were employed in the 1987 summer
season were dismissed with the 1988 workers (details
supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The conductors concerned were employed on a contract
basis for the summer season only, and they accepted this when
they were employed and signed contracts to that effect.
2. The release of existing staff on Voluntary Severance as
negotiated under the Viability Plan, commenced in early
September 1988 and in the circumstances there could be no
question of retaining the temporary staff concerned beyond the
holiday relief period.
3. The Company has complied with LCR11799 which related to
conductors who had completed the normal probationary period.
The staff concerned in this dispute had only between two to
four months service, and could not be retained as there would
be no requirement for them because of the high conversion rate
to OPO.
4. The NBU and FWUI made no protest to the Company
regarding the release of the staff concerned when their
contracts expired as they were well aware of the Company's
position in relation to this matter.
5. Temporary staff have always been employed in all areas
of the Company. In the conducting grade there was always
ongoing recruitment due to the high turnover level and a small
number of those taken on for summer relief were allowed to
remain and were appointed after 12 months if their service was
satisfactory. However the situation was not the same for
those conductors employed in 1988 as there was no recruitment
for them once the summer period ended and the major OPO
conversions commenced. The Company could not contemplate
recruiting conductors other than in a temporary capacity while
at the same time negotiating the release of hundreds of
conductors through voluntary severance.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the recruitment of conductors on fixed
term contracts in Summer 1988 was not a breach of LCR11799. The
OPO agreement provided that conductors already recruited would be
appointed after twelve months service and did not envisage that
any further recruitment of conductors would occur. It is not
therefore relevant to the circumstances of the present dispute.
It was however a breach of established custom and practice and as
such the Company should have attempted to get the unions'
agreement before it introduced the new type of contract. If the
issue had been referred to the Court at that stage, it is likely
that the Court would have found the Company's proposal to be
reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st December, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman