Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89397 Case Number: LCR12492 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the payment of One Person Operated (O.P.O.) bonus of 33 1/3% to those drivers operating the Aer Lingus Coach service.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that having regard to the unique
conditions obtaining on the route in question the payment of the
standard O.P.O. allowance is not warranted. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89397 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12492
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of One Person Operated (O.P.O.) bonus of
33 1/3% to those drivers operating the Aer Lingus Coach service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a bus service between Dublin Airport and
Bus Aras/Heuston Station known as the Aer Lingus route. It has
always been a one person operated route. The drivers assigned to
the service receive a bonus of 20%.
3. The Union lodged a claim for the payment of the O.P.O. bonus
of 33 1/3% to the workers operating the Airport service. The
Company rejected the claim and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 18th January,
1989. A conciliation conference was held on 21st February, 1989.
As no agreement was possible both parties subsequently consented
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 10th July, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Aer Lingus route was billed as a coach service, had a
bus with luggage space and porters at each end to load and
unload the buses. After the introduction of Labour Court
recommendation No. 9901 the Company converted all other
existing O.P.O. services to large capacity because of the bus
type. They also replaced the aged buses on the Aer Lingus
route with the same KC bus as was in use on all other large
capacity routes. They then did away with the porter in the
airport on the grounds that as KC buses without luggage space
were now in use, there was no requirement for a porter.
4. 2. The argument that they do not carry enough passengers to
justify large capacity does not stand up. This is a variable
service where some journeys can be virtually empty while
others, particularly from Heuston Station, do carry standing
passengers. With a fare of #2.30 their average daily takings,
particularly in Summer, can far exceed that of any other
O.P.O. large capacity route. The Company have cut services on
some large capacity routes because of low passenger carryings,
but paid the 33 1/3% bonus throughout because they accept that
it is not the actual carryings that determine payment, but the
type of bus used. Aer Lingus use large capacity buses.
Clause 7 of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901 refers to the
33 1/3% bonus and the type of bus for which it is paid and
reads as follows:-
" COMPANY POSITION - RATES OF PAY - the bonus payable to
drivers of O.P.O. double deck and large capacity buses,
operating stage carriage services, will be 33 1/3%.
The bonus will apply on all payments related to the
basic rate and will rank for annual leave and sickness
benefit payments and for pension purposes. The same
rate of pay will apply to large capacity single deck
and double deck buses."
" COURT RECOMMENDATION: The Court recommends that the
bonus payable to drivers of O.P.O. double deck and
large capacity single deck buses be increased to 33
1/3% and that the bonus apply to all payments related
to basic rates and rank for annual leave and sickness
benefit payments and for pension purposes."
3. The Company have argued that this is a "Coach Service".
However, the terminal point at Bus Aras is shared with that of
the B. & I. Ferryport Coach Service. The heading at the
departure gate is "Airport Coach Service and B. & I. Ferryport
Coach Service". They are both listed as special services on
the same page in the new timetable and regular commuter
tickets do not apply on either service. They both use large
capacity buses, with the same ticket machines etc., but the
one difference between them is that the B. & I. "coach" driver
gets 33 1/3% while the Aer Lingus "coach" driver only gets
20%. Similarly, the new sightseeing tours with open deck
buses who have no large capacity potential, but are paid 33
1/3% because of the type of bus used. The same applies to
City speed services from Maynooth and Celbridge.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Aer Lingus coach service has never been deemed a large
capacity route and indeed only carries approximately 10
passengers per journey, therefore the payment of the thirty
three and one third per cent bonus is not justified.
5. 2. The KC buses which are used on the route are only in use
because the Company has no other option. A new modified and
refurbished KC bus will be completed for the service over the
next few weeks which will ensure that on this service a seated
load can only be accommodated. Labour Court Recommendation
9901 does not state that the vehicle type ensures that the
large capacity rate is applicable. The Aer Lingus coach
service is not a normal service in that it has only two stops
and a flat rate fare, unlike other O.P.O. routes which have
numerous stops and fare stages.
3. The route has always been recognised both by Management
and staff as a light road. Staff who are under stress on
other routes are often assigned to the Aer Lingus route for a
short period of time. Drivers who operate this route are
already paid a 20% O.P.O. bonus which is in line with the
National Agreement and since their duties on this route have
not changed in any way as a result of the introduction of
Labour Court Recommendation 9901 the Company sees no merit in
this claim.
4. If the Union's claim is conceded, the Company will have no
choice but to advertise the route in the normal manner and
therefore will not be in a position to facilitate employees
who, for medical reasons, are unfit for the full duties of
normal TPO or OPO stage carriage routes.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that having regard to the unique
conditions obtaining on the route in question the payment of the
standard O.P.O. allowance is not warranted. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___28th___July,___1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman