Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88158 Case Number: LCR11884 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning a change of working arrangements on the Galway/Dublin Cross Channel services.
Recommendation:
9. In the circumstances of this case the Court considers that the
Company's proposal is not unreasonable and accordingly the Court
does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88158 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11884
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1 Dispute concerning a change of working arrangements on the
Galway/Dublin Cross Channel services.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been operating a cross-channel service
departing Galway at 15.00 hours daily since 1985. This service
carried both internal and cross-channel passengers. Early in
1987, the Company found it necessary to split the service thereby
providing separate services to cater for internal and
cross-channel passengers.
3. At present there are three drivers marked in on the
cross-channel service. The service operates 7 days a week and the
drivers work a 6 day week with Sunday as a rest day. The Sunday
service is worked on a rotation basis. The drivers have a total
of 4 days a week when they are on spare. On these days the
drivers are rostered to work spare duties at Galway depot booking
on at 8.00 a.m.
4. In May, 1987, the Company proposed to alter the working
arrangements by introducing a new operating board for the internal
service which would require the drivers to work Wednesday rest day
on a rotation basis. The Unions' objected to the proposed change
as it would eliminate the Sunday rest day for the drivers.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 18th May, 1987. Conciliation Conferences were
held on 10th June, 1987 and 26th January, 1988, at which no
agreement was possible. The parties concerned agreed to an
investigation and recommendation by the Labour Court. A Court
hearing was held in Galway on 4th May, 1988. The new service was
introduced on the 18th May, 1987, and has been operated daily
since then by a spare driver pending the outcome of the Court
hearing.
I.T.G.W.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. A marked-in operator should on social grounds alone if
none other, have Sunday as a rest day, as has been the case
in the past. If the Company was to succeed in their proposal
to designate Sunday as a normal working day, this would be a
retrograde step and a worsening of the workers' conditions
and in fact would allow the Company to have an operatives
rest day incorporated into another service such as in this
case the Galway/London Cross Channel Service. The operators
on this service totally reject the Company proposal as they
operate to the Dun Laoghaire Ferryport, and are based at Dun
Laoghaire overnight, returning to Galway the following day
arriving at 12 noon.
2. There are three operatives operating on rotation on this
Board, which in itself is an exclusive operation for the
operatives on this service, as regards tickets, computer,
re-booking and the service, on the outward journey to Dun
Laoghaire, catering only for passengers travelling to Britain
and the Continent. This Cross Channel Service is in
operation for the past few years and has proved most
successful. The Union therefore cannot see the merit of the
Company's proposal in introducing working practices which
will in fact have an effect that could relate to working
practices and agreements in a number of different ways, as
viewed from the Union side.
N.B.U'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. This particular service because of its cross channel
involvement requires that the operator stay overnight in
Dublin every second night. Having being away from home for
some nights the compensatory factor is that as the operator
rests on Sunday he has an opportunity to be with his family.
2. The Company now propose to have him rest on a weekday and
operate on a Sunday and this is being opposed by the Union.
To operate in this fashion would make the service completely
anti-social and there is no valid reason why this change
should be made. As the Sunday turn is a late one the Company
expressed concern that they might not be able to get a member
of the staff to work on a rest day basis and they are putting
this argument forward as a basis for change but there is no
foundation for such concern. This particular service has
been in operation for a considerable period of time and it
has never failed or indeed would the staff allow it to fail.
3. The Union cannot understand the reasons for the Company's
proposal bearing in mind the continuous attempts by them to
eliminate Sunday work from the area of permament attachment
to a board. When Sunday duty is operated on a rest day basis
and in the event of such Sunday duty being suppressed there
can be no claim for loss of earnings hence the Company's
policy of keeping Sunday work separate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company, must roster in the most efficient and cost
effective manner and it has the right to alter an existing
board provided the required seven days notice has been given.
2. The proposal represents the most economical arrangements
in view of the existing restrictions in relation to the
utilisation of the three cross-channel service drivers on
their 'spare' days and also because of the considerable
difficulty experienced by the Company in getting staff to
work on Sundays it would merely exacerbate the problem were
the Company to offer a Sunday rather than a Wednesday
rest-day on the new service.
3. There is already a widespread incidence of weekday
rest-day working on provincial bus services throughout the
Company and the proposals are fully within the terms of the
current Road Passenger Agreement.
4. The Company because of its severe financial position must
use the most effective method of rostering and cost control
to maintain the viability of such services and protect the
jobs of drivers in Galway where the Company already faces
strong competition from unlicenced operators.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. In the circumstances of this case the Court considers that the
Company's proposal is not unreasonable and accordingly the Court
does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd June, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman