Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89400 Case Number: LCR12480 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of two drivers on the Kildare/Dublin service for the restoration of a second meal allowance.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89400 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12480
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two drivers on the Kildare/Dublin service
for the restoration of a second meal allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the Company informed the two drivers on the
Kildare/Dublin 103C service that it would be altering the service.
The duty originally operated from Kildare to Dublin and the driver
had a break before returning to Kildare. The new roster would
allow the driver to break at Kildare and the meal allowance which
had been attached to the Board previously would no longer apply.
This was unacceptable to the Union and following negotiations the
Company agreed that the new Board would be operated with a
temporary continuation of the payment of the meal allowance
(#2.06) and the matter to be kept under review. On 17th October,
1988 the Company advised the Union of the introduction of the
revised Operating Boards on the Kildare service with a five day
week and also that the meal allowance would be withdrawn from
Board 103C on 23rd October, 1988. This was rejected by the Union
and following a review the Company advised the Union on 5th
January, 1989 that the new Boards would be implemented on a six
day basis and that the meal allowance would be withdrawn on 15th
January, 1989. A further meeting was held on 31st January, 1989
at which no progress was made and the meal allowance was
subsequently withdrawn on 13th February, 1989. No alteration was
made to the Saturday portion of the duty and the meal allowance
continues to be paid on Saturday. On 11th May, 1989 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 16th May, 1989 at which no
agreement was reached and on 30th May, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 29th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. One of the drivers has fourteen years service on the route
and the other three years and both have come to accept the
meal allowance as an important and integral part of their
earnings. The Company is not being asked to pay the meal
allowance to any new drivers who may work the route now or in
the future, but merely to recognise that as the allowance has
been an integral part of both drivers' earnings it should be
paid on a personal basis to them. The Company has saved a
significant amount of money with the changes while the cost of
paying the meal allowance is less than #100 a year. Prior to
the change the two drivers had a break in Broadstone canteen.
Since the change one of the drivers now has to drive seven
miles home from Kildare to have his break.
2. At a meeting held in January, 1989 it was agreed that an
additional duty which the Company wished to introduce in
conjunction with routes 103C and 103D would be made a separate
static duty and routes 103C and 103D would be left alone.
This saved the Company having to pay shift pay to the driver
on the new route 103E which would have been twice the cost of
the meal allowance. It was assumed that the meal allowance
would remain. This assumption was further confirmed by a
letter of 31st January, 1989 from the Company (details
supplied to the Court) which did not mention the withdrawal of
the meal allowance and the Union took this as a clear
indication that everything including the meal allowance would
remain as before on routes 103C and 103D.
3. There are a number of precedents for this claim. Drivers
operating the Dublin/Cork service are paid a meal allowance,
even though the Board they operate does not qualify under the
Agreement for such an allowance. In addition, drivers in
Dublin Bus who applied for rotating middle duties and were
subsequently reduced to static duties as a result of service
cutbacks retained their shift allowance on a personal basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is part of the National Agreement between the Company
and the Trade Unions that a meal allowance is only payable
where a driver or conductor is booked off away from the home
depot during one or more of the ordinary meal times. In the
case of the revised operating Board 103C the break is at the
home depot on its Monday to Friday operation, although it
continues to qualify for payment of the meal allowance on
Saturdays. If the Company were to continue to pay a meal
allowance in contravention of the Agreement it would lead to a
situation where workers could easily demand that a meal
allowance be paid in all situations.
4. 2. The Company is in a serious financial situation and must
operate in a cost effective and efficient manner if it is to
remain in business, particularly in view of the competition on
the profit making routes. The Company made it very clear
initially, and restated on a number of occasions, that the
meal allowance was to be withdrawn. A meal allowances is paid
to a worker as a subsidy to the cost of a meal. It is not
similar to other payments such as regular rostered overtime or
other bonuses which are paid. In all the circumstances, no
meal allowance should be payable on Operating Board 103C.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___21st___July,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman