Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88360 Case Number: LCR12010 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of a stores issuer for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that whatever losses were incurred by the
worker concerned were in the main due to the reorganistion of the
stores, brought about by the necessity of the Company to eliminate
losses. In light of this, and the Company's assertion that
certain proposals with regard to the workers grade and method of
operation will in effect eliminate further losses, the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88360 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12010
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a stores issuer for compensation for loss
of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has worked as a stores issuer in the
Company's Road Motor Garage in Dundalk since January, 1982. Prior
to that he worked as a road freight driver and acted up as road
freight inspector and rail supervisor. From the time he commenced
working in the stores in January, 1982, until November, 1986, he
worked an average of twelve hours overtime per week. The Union
claims that he was deliberately excluded from doing any overtime
from November, 1986, and that it was given to others instead. It
lodged a claim on his behalf for £4,400 in compensation for loss
of earnings (the maximum figure available under the Company/Group
of Unions Loss of Earnings Agreement). The Company rejected the
allegation that he was deliberately excluded from overtime and the
claim for compensation. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the issue and it was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 9th February, 1988. A conciliation
conference on the 13th April (earliest suitable date) failed to
resolve the dispute and on the 11th May it was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dundalk on the 13th July, 1988 (the earliest
date suitable to all parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the claimant transferred to the stores in January,
1982, he immediately commenced, on his own, to re-organise and
re-stock the area. During this time several other factors
contributed towards increasing his workload, namely the
opening of the Department of the Environment Test Centre
(which entailed extra materials being stored), the
introduction of productivity for craftsmen and the closure of
the Drogheda garage. The stores have a stock of approximately
4,000 articles valued at £250,000, with a turnover of
£500,000.
2. From the time his overtime was stopped in November, 1986,
other staff were assigned to assist the claimant in the store
for periods ranging from ten to twenty hours over the period
from the 3rd November, 1986 to the 31st October, 1987. When
one analyses these figures and looks at the claimant's weekly
average overtime of 11½ hours prior to 1986, it is quite
obvious that he was discriminated against.
3. If the claimant was on annual leave or if during this
twelve month period he had occasion to go out ill for a few
days, his relief was allowed to work at least two hours
overtime daily. To further highlight the injustice, staff who
were on the early shift starting at 6 a.m. would normally
finish at 2 p.m. and were occasionally asked to work overtime
in the stores until 5 p.m.. In addition occasionally staff on
rest days were taken in to assist in the stores.
4. The claimant regularly made representations to have his
overtime reinstated but to no avail. In justice and equity,
the claimant is entitled to compensation for his substantial
loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1987 the costs of running Dundalk Garage were
exorbitant and the Regional Maintenance Engineer was forced to
make changes to reduce the high costs of operation and to
create an efficient cost effective garage. It was necessary
to reduce the level of regular overtime being worked in the
garage and the stores was one of the areas affected. There
was also a reduction in the size of the fleet being maintained
in Dundalk over the period 1977 - 1987 and this affected the
amount of overtime working required.
2. The Company must operate its garages and its services in a
cost effective and efficient manner and since the
restructuring of C.I.E. and the formation of Bus Eireann this
has become even more vital as a sizeable proportion of the
work carried out in Dundalk is done for Iarnrod Eireann on its
road freight vehicles. If the Company does not offer rates
which are competitive with outside firms it could lose this
business and this would mean job losses in Dundalk. The
Company was therefore faced with an urgent requirement to
reduce maintenance costs in Dundalk in order to maintain its
operation. Other areas of the garage operation were also
affected as has already been stated. For example the number
of shift mechanics was reduced from four to three in 1987.
3. The claimant has continued to operate both a manual and
a computer system for stores and inventory operations. When
the computer system was introduced it was intended that
parallel running should continue for a limited period only.
However, he has requested that he be allowed continue this
arrangement. The Company's Materials Manager, however, has
told him that he can continue with the manual system for his
own purposes but the Company cannot afford any additional
expense and that no overtime would be sanctioned for this
work. In addition to this the claimant was absent from work
through illness on 51 days during 1987. The foreman in
Dundalk Garage has stated that on a number of occasions he
offered him overtime in his grade in the garage which the
claimant refused to work and which indicated that he was not
interested in working overtime other than on stores work.
4. The loss of earnings which he suffered in 1987 has not
continued. So far in 1988 his overtime earnings are 21.5
hours and the Company has offered, by letter of the 26th June,
1988, to regrade him to a new grade of Storeperson with an
enhanced rate of pay (L.C.R. 11813 refers).
5. The payment of loss of earnings in Bus Eireann has
previously been made only in situations where employees
suffered ongoing losses in earnings and, as outlined, the
claimant's earnings have begun to increase again and are
likely to remain higher in the future following his regrading
to Storeperson, if the Company's proposals in this regard are
accepted.
6. The Company has to examine all aspects of its operations
to endeavour to reduce costs and ensure the viability of its
operations. In the past, the Court has not recommended that
any loss of earnings be paid in situations where the loss
occurred due to loss of business or because of the difficult
financial situation within the Company (details supplied to
the Court).
7. Concession of this claim would also have serious
repercussive effects within Bus Eireann. The Company must be
able to react to changing circumstances particularly as it is
striving to adhere to the Government directive to break even
and is attempting to develop an efficient, cost effective
organisation which it must achieve if it is to survive in a
competitive market and protect the jobs of all employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that whatever losses were incurred by the
worker concerned were in the main due to the reorganistion of the
stores, brought about by the necessity of the Company to eliminate
losses. In light of this, and the Company's assertion that
certain proposals with regard to the workers grade and method of
operation will in effect eliminate further losses, the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________
2nd September, 1988
D.H./J.C. Deputy Chairman.