Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88522 Case Number: LCR12044 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Use of torque spanner in the Galway garage.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that garage mechanics are expected by the
Company to use torque spanners as required. The Court recommends
that the engineering operatives should also use torque spanners
when necessary for the completion of a tyre change whether in the
docking situation or otherwise.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88522 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12044
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Use of torque spanner in the Galway garage.
BACKGROUND:
2. In accordance with Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR10820
engineering operatives on wheel changing duties in the Galway
garage use torque spanners when changing wheels on buses. This
practice arose because of a new type of bus which required the
wheels to be "torqued" rather than using the old socket and bar
method. Up to that mechanics had been the only ones who could use
a torque spanner.
3. In late 1987 a dispute arose as a result of a mechanic
checking the torque of a wheel which had been changed and torqued
by an engineering operative. The bus was in for a routine service
inspection, known as docking, for which the mechanic has total
responsibility. The engineering operatives subsequently stopped
using the torque spanner in a docking situation, reverting
instead to using a socket and bar. When this practice came to the
attention of the Company the engineering operatives were asked to
return to using the torque spanner in all situations. However,
while agreeing to use the spanner on any wheel they changed they
still refused to use it where a wheel was moved to facilitate a
mechanic in a docking situation. One worker was suspended as a
result but was subsequently re-instated. Local level discussions
failed to resolve the matter and it was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No basis for a
settlement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
22nd June, 1988 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation into
the dispute was held in Galway on 14th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are classed as tyre men and their job is to
deal with all aspects associated with tyre wear and tear.
When they were required to use the torque spanner they had no
objections to its use subject to the limitations as laid down
by the Company. In its submission to the Labour Court at the
hearing of the dispute with craftsmen over the use of the
torque spanner by engineering operatives the Company
emphasised that engineering operatives should use the spanner
except where docking took place. The Company is now clearly
departing from this stated position. The Union believes that
the craftsmen exerted pressure on the Company by refusing to
use the torque spanner at the docking process thereby forcing
the Company to adopt its present stance.
2. The responsibility for the bus during the docking process
rests with the mechanic. Up to the issue of LCR10820 the
mechanic torqued the wheels during a dock. However, now that
the engineering operatives have the use of the torque spanner
the mechanics are refusing to do this job themselves despite
the fact that they must check the wheels again before they can
release the bus. The engineering operatives are being made
scapegoats of because of their co-operation in using the
torque spanner.
3. The Union does not believe that the Company made a mistake
in its submission as there are two separate statements
specifically excluding the engineering operative from
responsibilities during a docking situation.
4. The Union is not objecting to the use of the torque
spanner but rather to the attitude which is being shown by the
mechanics and by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has traditionally been an accepted part of the duties
of engineering operatives on tyre and wheel changing duties to
change wheels in all situations and nothing has changed to
alter this position.
2. Following the issue of LCR10820 the workers concerned
continued to use torque spanners and it was subsequent to a
dispute between an engineering operative and a mechanic
concerning the torquing of a wheel that the refusal to use a
torque spanner during the docking arose.
3. The Company's statement in its submission to the Labour
Court in the previous case effectively excluding engineering
operatives from using the torque spanner in a docking
situation was made in error. It was an unfortunate mistake
but does not detract from the position which has existed for a
number of years. This inaccurate statement cannot be used as
justification for a change in work practice.
4. It is the responsibility of a mechanic to ensure that a
vehicle is in a roadworthy condition following the dock and
this includes checking the torque of the wheels regardless of
whether they have been changed or not.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that garage mechanics are expected by the
Company to use torque spanners as required. The Court recommends
that the engineering operatives should also use torque spanners
when necessary for the completion of a tyre change whether in the
docking situation or otherwise.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
----------------
27th September, 1988. Chairman
R.B./J.C.