Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88379 Case Number: LCR11882 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Rationalisation proposals.
Recommendation:
The dispute before the Court stems from the Company's need to
rationalise - in order to minimise losses and the short-fall in
the State subsidy. The need for this action is recognised by the
three Unions involved as is confirmed by their acceptance in
principle of the objective of 75% OPO by the end of 1988.
The dispute between ITGWU and FWUI and the Company concerns the
method of achieving the proposed rationalisation and the strength
of Company guarantees to existing staff. Particularly at issue is
the extent to which the Company is seeking to alter the terms of
LCR9901.
The central issue raised by the ITGWU is the proposed alteration
to the guarantee agreed between the parties and enshrined in
LCR9901 that "the Company guarantees jobs in their own grades, in
their own garages and on their own routes for marked-in drivers
and marked-in conductors not engaged in one person operation".
In effect this guarantee gives a veto to OPO to each individual on
a route. In its Viability Plan the Company has proposed that the
individual veto should be replaced by a formula which provides
that a route will be deemed to be clear for conversion when 75% of
the "marked-in" staff have opted for OPO, Voluntary Severance or
Conversion.
The ITGWU put forward an alternative "dual purpose proposal" and
the Court has considered this proposal along with the Company's
Viability Plan. The Court notes that both documents propose
alterations to LCR9901.
The Court also took into account the views of the NBU, the FWUI
and the results of a survey conducted by the Company which gave an
indication of the staff preferences in relation to OPO.
As all the parties have agreed an objective of 75% OPO by the end
of 1988, the Court has considered the dispute in that context.
The Court is of the view that the 75% formula for agreement to
change put forward by the Company is the more realistic way to
achieve this objective.
The Court therefore accepts that the Viability Plan is the
appropriate way forward.
The Court recommends the following alterations to the Plan in
order to strengthen the guarantees to staff contained therein.
Protection for Staff who Convert - Paragraph C
The Court notes that the conversion payments recommended in
LCR9901 have been doubled in the proposed Viability Plan.
In relation to guarantees for those drivers and conductors who do
not opt for OPO the Court recommends the following additions:
Paragraph C, Clause 5
"No duty will be OPO'd on these routes until these staff have
been accommodated on a TPO duty within their own depot".
Paragraph C
Additional Clause (6)
Current appointed staff who opt for TPO duties will not be
pressurised either now or in the future to opt for OPO.
Paragraph D
OPO Conversions
Amend by adding the following
"In the event of failure to agree a formula the parties agree
to refer the matter to the Labour Court prior to any transfer
taking place".
The Court recommends that the Viability Plan as amended above be
put to ballot and that the Company postpone any of the proposed
changes to allow ballots to take place.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88379 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11882
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 18
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Rationalisation proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. At a meeting with Management on the 15th December, 1987, the
Unions in Dublin Bus were informed of the serious financial state
of the Company and the changes considered necessary to achieve
viability. Following several local level meetings in early 1988 a
proposal emerged regarding having a negotiated percentage figure
which would allow a route to be converted to OPO when that figure
was reached. This became known as "majority rule". This was
rejected by the ITGWU who instead put forward proposals for dual
purpose working. The Company was not agreeable to this and talks
broke down. On the 10th March, the NBU wrote to the Company
requesting that negotiations on the Viability Plan continue within
the majority rule proposal and that the cuts in services due for
implementation on Sunday 13th March and subsequent proposed cuts
would be postponed. The Company duly invited all Unions to a
meeting on the 16th March to resume negotiations on the basis of
the NBU's letter. At this meeting the Company confirmed that any
further discussions would include the majority rule issue and
because of this the ITGWU took no further part in the negotiations
on the Viability Plan. On the 28th April, final negotiated draft
proposals were issued to all Unions and staff. On the 2nd May,
the ITGWU held a general meeting at which it was decided not to
hold a ballot on the draft proposals. On the 3rd May, the Union
wrote to the Company, informing it of the Committee's rejection of
the plan and putting forward its own proposals for a dual purpose
OPO/TPO system. This was subsequently rejected by Management.
Both the NBU and FWUI balloted their members on the proposals; the
NBU accepted while the FWUI rejected them. In a letter to the
ITGWU (copied to the other Unions) the Company stated that in the
absence of consensus by the major Unions on the Viability
Proposals, it would have to take alternative action to bring its
operational costs into line with its financial resources. Details
of this alternative action, involving cuts in services from the
29th May, were given to the Unions at a meeting on the 25th May.
3. Following receipt of a letter signed by both the FUE and the
ICTU, the Labour Court intervened in the dispute under Section 18
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Two Court hearings were
held on the 26th and 30th May, 1988. Following the Court's
intervention, the Company deferred the proposed cuts for a week.
Despite having negotiated and accepted the Viability Plan and
therefore not being in dispute with the Company on the issue, the
NBU attended both Court hearings.
Current Positions:
4. The following are the current positions of the parties in
relation to the dispute:
ITGWU's position:
5. The Union is fundamentally opposed to the concept of majority
rule or as is provided for in the Plan that a route is clear for
conversion when 75% of the "marked-in" staff have opted for OPO,
voluntary severance or conversion. It is not prepared to see any
dilution of the guarantees contained in LCR9901 especially Clause
1.3 in relation to "the Company guarantees jobs in their own
grades in their own garages and on their own routes for marked-in
drivers and marked-in conductors not engaged in OPO". The Union
reminded the Court that the majority of acceptance of LCR9901 was
very slim and that without that guarantee it would have been
rejected. With this in mind, the Union drew up a plan of its own
involving dual purpose working which it believes would achieve the
targets required by the Company while retaining the guarantees
contained in LCR9901.
FWUI's position:
6. The Union is of the view that its members rejected the
Viability Plan for the following reasons:
- in Paragraph 2(C)5 the Company guarantees the designated TPO
duties for its current appointed staff as long as they wish to
remain as TPO operators. The Union considers this guarantee to
be inadequate and is seeking to have it strengthened.
- there is concern that Paragraph 2(D)(OPO conversions) could
lead to many members being forcibly transferred to other
garages. The Union claim is that the Company will only apply
compulsory transfer of staff under Clause 18 of the National
Agreement, only when the formula as provided in Clause 2(D) of
the Plan is agreed with the Union.
- in relation to Paragraph (A) of Work Practices, there is
concern among the members, especially spare staff, that the
implementation of this Clause will end their opportunity to
work an early Saturday. This is unlikely to affect marked-in
staff to the same extent. If 10% of early Main Rota Duties are
scheduled to start later than 9 a.m., spare staffs' opportunity
to work early duties will be diminished. Any further cuts in
services will worsen the problem. The Union argues that in
order to alleviate the unsocial nature of the proposed
schedules, they should finish no later than 16.30.
Company's Position:
7. The Company has spelt out clearly to the Unions and the Court,
its dire financial situation and the urgency of implementing the
terms of the Viability Plan. If consensus on the Plan cannot be
reached then it will introduce alternative cuts in services
immediately, details of which have been supplied to both the
Unions and the Court.
In relation to the ITGWU's alternative plan the Company's position
is as follows:
- Cost
It was estimated that to provide the same level of service with
OPO, it would be necessary to provide 27 additional buses for a
75% of OPO. If it was to provide OPO Schedules for 100% of its
routes this would require 36 additional buses, an increase of 9
buses. The cost to the Company of providing these additional 9
buses would be £700,000 per annum.
- Operational problems
(a) Schedules are designed to provide even headways (time
between each bus) as far as possible. Whilst traffic
congestion has an affect on these headways, dual OPO/TPO
operation would totally exacerbate the situation and
result in a degeneration of the service with buses
"polling" and bigger gaps being created on a planned
basis, e.g. service with 10 minutes frequency - OPO
followed by TPO then OPO, TPO will catch up with OPO
service leaving a gap of 20 minutes before the next OPO
service.
In addition to the above a TPO service on a high frequency
route departing after an OPO service will arrive at other
terminus before the OPO service but will remain there and
the OPO service arriving later will be first to depart.
(b) Crewing Difficulties
Unrestricted Dual Operations would result in rostering and
crew change over difficulties (details supplied to the
Court).
- Customer Confusion
Since all buses would require to be fitted with signage and
equipment for OPO the passenger would be confused at the point
of entry of whether to tender the fare to the driver or pass
by.
When crew changeovers occur at City Centre, passengers could
board prior to new crew arriving and if new crew was OPO,
passengers would have to disembark to pay the driver.
Dual operation would legislate against the development of the
customer having the correct fare.
In general, the Union's proposals are dependant on the individual
driver being agreeable to change. The Company cannot operate an
efficient cost effective service which is subject to a one-man
veto. It is committed to making significant capital investment
over the coming years to ensure the success of OPO and to attract
customers back to the bus service whilst at the same time reducing
or containing the cost of bus services to both the customer and
the State.
With regard to the issues raised by the FWUI, the Company's
position is as follows:
- the guarantees given to staff on designated TPO routes are
explicitly stated on Page 3, paragraph 5, of the Plan and could
only be varied by agreement of the parties. The Company would
not object to the Labour Court enhancing or "copper fastening"
these guarantees.
- with regard to OPO conversions and the fear that this will
result in compulsory transfer to other garages, the proposals
state that the phasing in of OPO will be carefully planned by
Management in consultation with the Unions so as to minimise
short-staffing or over-staffing at any one garage. The
provision of the Clause that the junior man must travel is to
cater for unforeseen circumstances and must first be discussed
with the Unions. It is normal industrial relations procedure
to include such a provision.
- with regard to bogey duties, it was agreed that some staff have
a preference for working this type of duty and the proposal
represents an increase of twelve on approximately 1,000 duties
operated (1.2%). It is not envisaged that this would present
any major difficulties and the Company see no need to amend the
proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court stems from the Company's need to
rationalise - in order to minimise losses and the short-fall in
the State subsidy. The need for this action is recognised by the
three Unions involved as is confirmed by their acceptance in
principle of the objective of 75% OPO by the end of 1988.
The dispute between ITGWU and FWUI and the Company concerns the
method of achieving the proposed rationalisation and the strength
of Company guarantees to existing staff. Particularly at issue is
the extent to which the Company is seeking to alter the terms of
LCR9901.
The central issue raised by the ITGWU is the proposed alteration
to the guarantee agreed between the parties and enshrined in
LCR9901 that "the Company guarantees jobs in their own grades, in
their own garages and on their own routes for marked-in drivers
and marked-in conductors not engaged in one person operation".
In effect this guarantee gives a veto to OPO to each individual on
a route. In its Viability Plan the Company has proposed that the
individual veto should be replaced by a formula which provides
that a route will be deemed to be clear for conversion when 75% of
the "marked-in" staff have opted for OPO, Voluntary Severance or
Conversion.
The ITGWU put forward an alternative "dual purpose proposal" and
the Court has considered this proposal along with the Company's
Viability Plan. The Court notes that both documents propose
alterations to LCR9901.
The Court also took into account the views of the NBU, the FWUI
and the results of a survey conducted by the Company which gave an
indication of the staff preferences in relation to OPO.
As all the parties have agreed an objective of 75% OPO by the end
of 1988, the Court has considered the dispute in that context.
The Court is of the view that the 75% formula for agreement to
change put forward by the Company is the more realistic way to
achieve this objective.
The Court therefore accepts that the Viability Plan is the
appropriate way forward.
The Court recommends the following alterations to the Plan in
order to strengthen the guarantees to staff contained therein.
Protection for Staff who Convert - Paragraph C
The Court notes that the conversion payments recommended in
LCR9901 have been doubled in the proposed Viability Plan.
In relation to guarantees for those drivers and conductors who do
not opt for OPO the Court recommends the following additions:
Paragraph C, Clause 5
"No duty will be OPO'd on these routes until these staff have
been accommodated on a TPO duty within their own depot".
Paragraph C
Additional Clause (6)
Current appointed staff who opt for TPO duties will not be
pressurised either now or in the future to opt for OPO.
Paragraph D
OPO Conversions
Amend by adding the following
"In the event of failure to agree a formula the parties agree
to refer the matter to the Labour Court prior to any transfer
taking place".
The Court recommends that the Viability Plan as amended above be
put to ballot and that the Company postpone any of the proposed
changes to allow ballots to take place.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd June, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman