Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88159 Case Number: LCR11885 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Unions for the rotation of two drivers on the Galway/Belfast service.
Recommendation:
10. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that there is no obligation on the Company to
introduce rotation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88159 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11885
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the rotation of two drivers on the
Galway/Belfast service.
BACKGROUND:
2. For the past 16 years the Company in conjunction with
Ulsterbus operates two services daily Monday to Saturday with on
service on Sunday on the Galway/Belfast route.
3. Since the inception of the service, the drivers have never
alternated ie. the driver marked in for the early service operates
the early trip and the driver marked in on the late service
operates the late trip.
4. In September, 1984, a claim was made to have the two drivers
involved on the service rotate on early and late shift. The claim
was rejected by the Company on the grounds that the services were
advertised, and people applying for them made aware that they were
static and did not rotate.
5. The claim was then referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court. At a Conciliation Conference held on 21st November,
1984, the N.B.U. indicated that their member who had been
marked-in on the early service for 12 years was not willing to
accept rotation. The Industrial Relations Officer by letter dated
22nd November, 1984, set down the outcome of the conference as
follows -
"The parties viz C.I.E., I.T.G.W.U., and N.B.U. agree that in
the event of the early board becoming vacant, the Company and
the two Unions will discuss the matter to see if rotation is
possible".
6. The driver marked-in on the early board retired on 17th
December, 1987. The Unions then reactivated the claim for
rotation. The Company rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 13th
January, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was held on 20th
January, 1988. As no agreement was possible the parties agreed to
a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Galway on 4th May,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS (I.T.G.W.U.):
7. 1. The Union contends that the Company, in rejecting the
claim, has failed to honour an agreement reached in 1984
(letter dated 22nd November, 1984, from the I.R.O. refers).
This has resulted in a loss of shift pay for the operatives
concerned since the early service became vacant.
2. There were discussions at that time and the Unions were
led to believe that the matter would be resolved and that the
workers would not lose out in relation to the overall
position.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS (N.B.U.):
8. 1. The Company has argued that to rotate the duties would
involve increased costs i.e. payment of a shift premium to
the workers concerned. This was not an issue at the previous
Conciliation Conference and if the driver who was originally
assigned to the early duty had agreed to rotate, it would
have been done.
2. The rotation of early and late duties are for the purpose
of balancing the unsocial aspects of late working. There are
several examples where services, which operate alongside each
another, rotate (details supplied to the Court). There is no
valid reason why the services in this case do not rotate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Rotation has never applied on the services in question.
The services were advertised, and the people applying were
made aware that the services were static.
2. The services are already incurring heavy losses and
cannot carry any additional costs. The extra cost of
rotation (payment of shift premium) could put the future of
Galway/Belfast services and the drivers' jobs in jeopardy.
3. The Company is striving to adhere to the Government
directive to break even. If a situation were to arise where
costs would be increased it would further aggravate an
already difficult financial situation.
4. The current driver on the late service applied for and
was appointed to a fixed non-rotating turn of duty and does
not have an "entitlement" to rotation. The vacancy on the
early shift should also be advertised as a fixed non-rotating
turn of duty and any driver who is interested will have the
option of applying.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that there is no obligation on the Company to
introduce rotation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd June, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman