Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88580 Case Number: LCR12095 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a bus worker for restoration to driving duties.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the Company's policy in relation to problem
drinking. The Court has considered very carefully the record of
the claimant in this particular case and is of the view that the
Company has not acted unreasonably towards him. The Court is
aware of the continuing evolving attitudes to alcoholism and also
the evolving methods of treatment of the condition.
In view of the claimant's conscientious adherence to the
rehabilitation course proposed for him the Court recommends that
his case should be reviewed again by the Company in June, 1990.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88580 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a bus worker for restoration
to driving duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a bus conductor on 30th March, 1969
and appointed to that grade on 26th April, 1970. The worker
transferred to the driving grade on 24th November, 1974 and was
appointed a driver on 14th December, 1975. On 24th December, 1978
the worker was dismissed for being under the influence of drink
while on duty as a bus driver, this dismissal was subsequently
reduced by the Company's internal appeal boards to eleven days
suspension and he resumed driving on 7th January, 1978. On 15th
June, 1984 the worker was arrested by the Gardai for driving a
private hire bus while under the influence of drink. Following
this the worker decided to seek treatment for his drink problem
and the Union had him assessed by the Alcoholic Rehabilitation
Centre and he was placed in the Rutland Centre for a six weeks
in-patient course. The worker advised the Company's medical
department of this and under the programme for problem drinking he
was placed out ill to take the course. He subsequently undertook
after - care treatment for two years. The worker decided to
revert voluntarily to conductor duties and he resumed work in this
grade in August, 1984. On 1st November, 1984 he appeared in Court
arising from the incident in June, 1984 and was convicted of
drunken driving, fined and disqualified from driving for twelve
months. The worker was interviewed in connection with this by his
District Manager on 8th November, 1984 and was issued with one
week's notice of dismissal. He appealed this penalty through the
Union to the Company's Internal Appeals Board which upheld the
penalty of dismissal. The Union then made an ad misericordium
appeal to the Manager, Dublin City Services, who reduced the
penalty to two weeks suspension of which one week was to be
recorded and the worker resumed his conducting duties. Following
the restoration of the worker's driving licence he requested a
return to driving duties, but this request was refused by
management. The Union also subsequently requested that the worker
be returned to driving duties but this was again refused. The
Union referred the matter to the Rights Commissioners' Service but
the Company declined an invitation to attend a hearing. On 12th
July, 1988, the Union referred the matter to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court but the Company refused to attend and
on 22nd July 1988 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on 22nd August, 1988 and a
further hearing took place on 10th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Throughout the worker's previous period of employment as
a conductor and driver it should have been recognised that he
had a drink problem However, following the incident in June,
1984 it was the worker himself who decided to seek treatment
for his drink problem and he reverted voluntarily to
conducting. The worker was advised that he would require two
years after care treatment which he undertook. He has
successfully completed the programme and there is medical
evidence of this (details supplied to the Court). He has now
recovered from his drink problem.
2. Traditionally, the custom and practice in Dublin City
Services in relation to such issues was that a worker either
on regaining a driving licence or when fit for driving applied
for and was normally granted driver status. The unions
received no notification of any change in the Company's policy
in 1985. It was not until 1987 that there was any official
communication indicating a change in policy, despite the fact
that meetings took place in 1986 and in a letter of 16th
December, 1986 the Company stated that out of 122 workers who
participated in the Programme on Problem Drinking only 7
failed to return to driving. There is no reference to any
change in either company policy or the Programme on Problem
Drinking and this worker's application should therefore have
been dealt with under Clause 3.3 of the Programme (details
supplied to the Court), which clearly specifies that the
object of the programme is to restore any worker taking part
to their previous jobs. Similar programmes in other State and
semi-State companies allow workers to resume their duties on
successful completion of the programme. This is in contrast
to the new policy in this Company.
3. The worker's disciplinary record since his treatment is
completely clear. He has received safe driving certificates
from the Company. For the offence in June, 1984 the State
banned the worker for driving for twelve months, his licence
has now been restored but the Company will not restore him to
driving duties. Other workers who had previously been banned
from driving have on regaining their licences taken on driving
duties. If the worker had resumed driving he would now be a
one-person-operator and with a 331/3% bonus for this would be
earning almost #100 more per week. The worker is capable of
driving and should be restored to driving duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As set out in the Rule Book, the Company may at any time
dismiss or suspend from duty any worker found guilty of
consuming alcohol while on duty. In this worker's case the
Company dealt very leniently with him by continuing to employ
him as a conductor with little difference in salary although
he was dismissed twice for driving a bus while under the
influence of drink.
2. It was a management decision to refuse this worker's
request to resume driving duties and in doing so management
considered in great detail all aspects of the case and the
views of the Chief Medical Officer were also obtained. Public
safety is management's responsibility and the Company must at
all times take into consideration the safety of its
passengers, other road users and other workers in the Company.
The present claim if conceded would have serious repercussions
for the Company as other workers who lost their licence would
also expect to be re-instated as bus drivers on the
restoration of a driving licence.
3. The Company's policy in relation to driving under the
influence of drink was annunciated in June, 1985 when the Area
Managers agreed that on a national basis within the Company,
any worker who either loses a driving licence following a
conviction of drunken driving or is dismissed for being under
the influence of drink should not be re-employed as a driver.
This policy was not at the time conveyed to the unions as the
Company was not obliged to re-engage in any capacity any
workers who had been charged with being under the influence of
drink while on duty.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the Company's policy in relation to problem
drinking. The Court has considered very carefully the record of
the claimant in this particular case and is of the view that the
Company has not acted unreasonably towards him. The Court is
aware of the continuing evolving attitudes to alcoholism and also
the evolving methods of treatment of the condition.
In view of the claimant's conscientious adherence to the
rehabilitation course proposed for him the Court recommends that
his case should be reviewed again by the Company in June, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
-------------------
28th October, 1988
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman