Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88953 Case Number: LCR12247 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION |
(a) Claim for inclusion of the 20% one person operation bonus for pension purposes. (b) Claim for inclusion of the 33 1/3% O.P.O. bonus in the calculation of pensions paid to spare drivers.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds validity in the Company's argument that the
terms of the agreement on pay for the 27th round, reached between
the NBU and the Company, which incorporates the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery, preclude these claims.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88953 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12247
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Claim for inclusion of the 20% one person operation
bonus for pension purposes.
(b) Claim for inclusion of the 33 1/3% O.P.O. bonus in the
calculation of pensions paid to spare drivers.
BACKGROUND:
Claim (a)
2. One person operation (O.P.O.) has existed on provincial bus
services since 1963 and a 20% bonus on these (smaller) buses has
applied. Following Labour Court Recommendations Nos 9901 and
11151 which related to the introduction of O.P.O. on larger city
buses a 33 1/3% bonus on the larger buses was introduced. The 33
1/3% bonus is reckonable for pension purposes while the 20% bonus
is not. In June, 1988 the Union served a claim seeking to have
the 20% bonus taken into account in calculating pensions. A
meeting took place in August and on 27th September, 1988 the
Company wrote to the Union rejecting the claim and setting out its
reasons for doing so.
Claim (b)
3. The 33 1/3% bonus is reckonable for pension purposes in the
case of full time "marked-in" drivers. It is not reckonable in
the case of spare drivers. In provincial cities spare drivers are
sometimes required to operate the larger buses which attract the
33 1/3% bonus. The Union, seeing this as anomalous, served a
claim in March, 1988 to have the 33 1/3% bonus taken into account
in calculating the pensions of spare drivers. The Company
rejected the claim.
4. Both issues were referred, on 11th October, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court and a conciliation
conference was held on 25th November, 1988. No agreement was
reached on either matter and, following further communication from
the parties, the matter was referred on 14th December, 1988 to a
full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 19th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim (a)
5. 1. An anomalous situation currently exists whereby the 33
1/3% bonus ranks for pension purposes while the 20% bonus does
not. The position which existed over the years has changed
with LCR 9901 and LCR 11151. The current situation is
discriminatory and illogical. The situation is particularly
anomalous given that it is the smaller of the two bonuses
which does not rank for pension purposes.
2. The number of workers involved in this claim is
approximately 400, as against the remaining 2600 busworkers
who qualify for a higher pension.
3. A recent productivity deal concerning Engineering
Operatives in the Company granted pension increases. This
took place subsequent to the Company's rejection of the
present claim.
4. The present rate of pension of the staff concerned is
#28.50 which is extremely low. Concession of the claim would
bring this figure up to #33.50 which is still a low rate.
Claim (b)
1. There is no justification for the exclusion of spare staff
working on one person operation from the higher rate of pension.
The current situation is seen by the Union as anamolous.
2. There will soon be only one person operation only in the
Company. Spare staff should not be debarred from the benefits
associated with large capacity O.P.O.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim (a)
6. 1. There are two separate agreements concerning O.P.O.
working. The final agreement on city O.P.O. (33 1/3%) working
reflects the difference in working conditions and was designed
to compensate staff involved for these variations. The
complete package included the provision that the 33 1/3% bonus
would rank for pension purposes. As the Company stated in its
letter to the Union dated the 27th September, 1988, the 20%
bonus resulted from a long standing separate agreement on one
person operation of provincial services (other than city
operation) and that agreement did not provide for the 20%
bonus to rank for pension purposes. The 20% bonus does not
rank for anything except overtime whereas the 33 1/3% bonus
ranks for all payments related to the basic rate.
Claim (b)
6. 2. The Agreement on one person operation is quite clear in
that only marked-in O.P.O. drivers are entitled to contribute
to and receive benefit from the higher pension. Spare drivers
in the four cities do not work exclusively on O.P.O. duties.
There is no justification for the inclusion of these staff on
the higher contribution rate. Spare drivers are paid a
non-participating allowance which does not rank for any other
payments.
3. The financial situation of the Company is serious. In
its first full year of operation, expenditure exceeded revenue
(including government subvention) by #5.65 million. This
deficit had to be financed by additional borrowings. The
Company would, in the present circumstances, have severe
difficulties in meeting the ongoing costs of the claims. The
various C.I.E. Group of Companies Pension Scheme are statutory
schemes and any change must be agreed by the Minister for
Tourism and Transport and implemented by a Statutory
Instrument. The process for such change involves the
justification of any proposed changes to the Minister. This
is not possible in the current financial situation.
4. Under the 27th wage round settlement terms, it was agreed
between the Company and the union that there would be an
embargo on all cost increasing claims. This was also provided
for in the Programme for National Recovery. These claims are,
therefore, debarred by this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds validity in the Company's argument that the
terms of the agreement on pay for the 27th round, reached between
the NBU and the Company, which incorporates the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery, preclude these claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
2nd February, 1989 -------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman