Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88855 Case Number: AD893 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 208/88 concerning payment of compensation to a worker who was reverted to a spare panel from a marked-in service in Galway following a re-organisation.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was
in error in awarding compensation to the driver concerned as it is
contrary to the practice prevailing generally in the Company.
The Court therefore decides that the appeal should be allowed.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88855 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 208/88 concerning payment of compensation to
a worker who was reverted to a spare panel from a marked-in
service in Galway following a re-organisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early in 1988 the Company commenced negotiations with the
trade unions in Galway to implement a major re-organisation of the
Galway District bus services. The main element of the
re-organisation came into effect on the 23rd May, 1988 with the
final changes taking place on the 11th July, 1988.
3. As a result of the re-organisation the worker concerned (a
driver) was reverted to the spare panel in Galway depot where he
was based as a marked-in man. The Union lodged a claim for
compensation on the basis that the worker had suffered a degree of
inconvenience as a result of the change. The Company rejected the
claim and the matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner
investigation held on the 19th September, 1988. The following
recommendation was issued on the 7th October, 1988:-
" In the light of the above I recommend that Bus
Eireann pay to the worker the sum of #120.00 and that
this is accepted by him in full and final settlement
of all claims on the Company in relation to
inconvenience suffered following his reversion to
spare driver capacity.
In making this recommendation I am predominantly
influenced by the conjunction of inconvenience
suffered along with the responsible support and
co-operation to the Company by the trade union."
The Rights Commissioner referred to the worker by name in his
recommendation.
4. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal in Galway on 14th December, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The driver has not been forced to move depot following the
change and has suffered no appreciable change in his method of
working. Should he suffer any loss of earnings after 12
months he will be compensated for this loss.
2. The concession of such claims would create an intolerable
situation for the Company whereby any change in service levels
or requirements, in any location throughout the country, would
now be the subject of claims for disturbance and or
inconvenience payments.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was based on a
comparison with the situation in Galway in 1982 which a
previous Rights Commissioner investigated. He does not deal
with the realities of the present financial situation of Bus
Eireann or with practice within the Company or in industry
generally.
4. Changes in customer demands are part and parcel of road
passenger operations and it is imperative that the Company be
in a position to respond quickly to these changes. It is also
part of a driver's job to change duties from time to time and
the identification of being a marked-in driver is merely an
indication of the general duties to which a driver is
assigned. These can and do change from time to time and the
only valid criteria which should be used is the location or
depot where the driver is based. In this case there has been
no change in the depot.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Rights Commissioner's hearing, which was a
comprehensive one, also had before it the facts relating to a
similar case in 1982 which was also the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's hearing. That Recommendation No. CM/12,450
(details supplied to the Court). was accepted by the Company
and it is rather strange that the Company choose to appeal
this case now instead of doing the honourable thing and accept
it bearing in mind the meagre amount involved.
2. In his Recommendation the Rights Commissioner was very
accurate in his findings but the Union could well be excused
for feeling that a higher award was merited. Nevertheless the
Union is prepared to accept the outcome.
6. 3. Now that the Company choose to bring the matter before the
Court there is nothing to stop the Court from increasing the
award and that would be welcome bearing in mind that the
changes that took place at the time were part of a big
rationalisation plan which was negotiated between the Company
and the trade unions.
4. There was considerable savings to the Company and they got
full co-operation from the staff and unions. It would be
ironic and somewhat small minded if the Company insisted on
making a big issue of this as to do so would not auger well
for the future. The Court is requested to reject the
Company's appeal.
DECISION:
7. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was
in error in awarding compensation to the driver concerned as it is
contrary to the practice prevailing generally in the Company.
The Court therefore decides that the appeal should be allowed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
19th January, 1989
M.D./J.C. Deputy Chairman.