Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8933 Case Number: LCR12282 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Introduction of new rosters in Dundalk.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that the proposed rostering is not
contrary to the 1972 Agreement, insofar as the current arrangement
was clearly temporary. The Court therefore recommends that the
Company's rostering arrangements be accepted by the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8933 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12282
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of new rosters in Dundalk.
BACKGROUND:
2. At the beginning of the current school year the schedule for
roster 10 consisted of two journeys, one in the morning and one in
the evening. One of the trips was to Kilsarn and the other was a
town run in Dundalk. Because of an increasing number of pupils in
a school on the Dundalk side of Carlingford, an auxiliary service
was introduced to Carlingford. This service necessitated a
requirement for morning and evening overtime. An auxiliary
service to Newry (also catering for extra pupils) was also covered
by overtime. The Carlingford area is serviced by a hired
contractor and a Company bus and the Company claims that the
service is under utilised. It proposes to amalgamate the work of
the school bus and the contractor, and utilise the surplus school
bus on the current roster 10 serving Kilsarn. The Company
proposes to create a new schedule for roster 10 (details supplied
to the Court). The effect of the change will be to combine a
school route with a regular bus service. The change will result
in a loss of overtime which has been worked by regular employees
since last September, and the transfer of some work to a part-time
driver. While there are in fact two unions involved in the
change, the Company's proposal is acceptable to one union. The
Union involved in this claim has resisted the change stating that
it is contrary to an Agreement reached in 1972 and the Union is
not prepared to accept the transfer of some duties to a part-time
worker. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue and the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 26th October, 1988. Conciliation conferences were
held on the 22nd November, 1988 and 4th January, 1989 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 31st January,
1989. A Court hearing took place on the 2nd February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has rejected the Company's proposal as it
effectively takes away overtime presently being operated by
regular staff and transfers it to a part-time school bus
driver. The Union initially heard of the Company's proposal
in September, 1988, when the local Union official made
enquiries to ascertain the accuracy of the report. The
Company confirmed that it was their intention to make the
change even though the Union produced confirmation of an
existing Agreement (negotiated in 1971) in relation to school
bus drivers. The Company stated that they intended to proceed
with the change because "the majority union has accepted it."
Subsequently the Union advised the Company by letter dated
25th October, 1988 "that should it proceed with its decision,
a dispute would take place on that date."
2. The Union produced evidence of an Agreement in relation to
regular bus drivers and school bus drivers (details of this
Agreement have been supplied to the Court). The Company
however would not accept the validity of the Agreement. When
the Company requested that the dispute be referred to the
Court the Union was initially against the referral arguing
that the Agreement was already in place and was not being
implemented by the Company. The Union again brought to the
Company's attention the fact that the Agreement stated that
"the operation of school runs and the employment of part time
drivers would not effect the earnings of road passenger
drivers." Management's statement that "local representatives
were made aware of the proposed changes initially and did not
object" was incorrect. The Union had no meeting with the
Company on the proposed changes, and no evidence of such a
meeting existed. Had there been such a meeting, the Union
would have rejected the proposals.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the situation first arose in September, 1988 the
Company advised local representatives of both unions involved
that changes would have to be made to facilitate the increased
numbers in the two areas. As an immediate service was
required Management proposed, as a temporary measure, that
extra duties by way of overtime should be worked to cover the
auxiliary service to and from Carlingford and the afternoon
service from Newry. They also stated that permanent changes
would be proposed by the Company but the unions would be kept
informed. These changes would have to be in line with
providing the desired service in the most economical and cost
effective way. No objection was raised by either of the
unions involved. A new roster 10 was created and a school
bus, surplus to requirements would be used on the original
roster 10 covering Kilsarn. The unions were advised about the
new roster 10 in October, 1988, and again, no objections were
raised. The Company advertised the new roster locally and
simultaneously informed local union representatives. At this
point however the Union concerned objected and stated that the
Company was not working in accordance with an Agreement quoted
in a letter (dated January, 1972) from an Industrial Relations
Officer of the Court (details of the Agreement supplied to the
Court).
2. Following the Union's objection to the new roster, the
Company met the Union to discuss the Agreement of 1972. At
this stage the other union still had no objection to the
roster and in fact three of its members had applied for the
new roster. It should be noted that the original roster 10
was vacant when the need for change arose. The Company did
not accept that there were any valid reasons why the revised
roster should not be implemented as proposed and advised the
unions that the revised arrangements would be introduced in
November, 1988. The Union concerned stated that if the roster
was implemented, it would take industrial action. However,
the other union was still agreeable to the change. The
Company decided to defer the introduction of the revised
roster pending conciliation conference discussions. These two
conferences held were not successful, but the Union while
originally stating that the issue was not roster 10 but the
consequential effects regarding overtime, nevertheless at the
second conciliation conference it reverted to being against
the change taking place at all. The overtime issue was raised
and the fact that some staff would be at a loss if it were
discontinued. The Company pointed out that, from the
beginning, it was explained to the unions, that overtime was
only a temporary solution, and a permanent solution had to be
found. The District Manager pointed out that although
overtime had been available, a lot of staff did not seem to
want to work it, and on occasions inspectors had to drive
buses in order to provide the service.
3. The circumstances surrounding the Industrial Relations
Officer's letter of 1972 (which involved a claim for
protection of earnings of regular road passenger drivers
relieving part-time schoolbus drivers) are completely
different to the case before the Court to day. In this case
the schools trip, up to 1984 had been operated by a part-time
school bus driver, but then became vacant. At the same time
work had to be found for a surplus bus driver in Dundalk depot
and it was decided to allocate the Kilsarn run to his driver.
The number of pupils increased on the Dundalk side of
Carlingford, and the Newry Road (because of new schools) while
in the Carlingford area itself, pupil members had decreased,
and the Company bus and a contractor's bus were operating
below capacity. Simultaneously, the position of roster 10
became vacant, and the Company therefore, in order to ensure
efficient operation of its services, had to introduce the
changes already outlined. These proposals were not objected
to by the Unions at the time.
4. The Company has previously substituted part-time school
bus drivers or school bus contractors where formerly a regular
bus driver operated, for example in the Athlone district,
where as a result of a re-organisation of services a school
bus contractor was placed on the school bus service
(previously operated by a road passenger driver) without Union
objections. The Company administers and operates the schools
transport scheme on behalf of the Department of Education, and
in four counties devolution projects in school transport were
proposed by the Minister. In these counties, the operation of
the school transport scheme was to be taken from Bus Eireann
and given to local interests. In the event, this scheme was
deferred, following representations from the Company, and
particularly the Unions, who assured the Minister of their
support in achieving the cost reduction required. In recent
Government estimates the allocation to the Company for running
the school transport scheme has been reduced by 18% or #5.8
million. However, the Company is expected to provide the same
level of service even with this degree of cut-back. It is
imperative, therefore, that the most efficient and cost
effective means be found to operate the school transport
services and protect the jobs of the workers concerned. The
Company cannot continue with a situation where there is spare
capacity on buses in one area, and vehicles in other areas
have to be operated by regular staff on overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that the proposed rostering is not
contrary to the 1972 Agreement, insofar as the current arrangement
was clearly temporary. The Court therefore recommends that the
Company's rostering arrangements be accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
17th February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D/J.C.