Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89372 Case Number: LCR12482 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of a bus driver for the introduction of a shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. The Court acknowledges the care which the parties to this
dispute took in presenting the background of previous Labour Court
recommendations of the early 1970s, the general operation of early
and late starting times, and the particular roster which the
claimant is currently operating. Further, the parties agreed that
the case did not come within the definition of a "rotating' shift,
thus the matter to be determined is whether or not it comes within
the definition of "alternating".
The Court is satisfied that the difference in starting times is
such that the premium which is paid for alternating shifts (Monday
to Saturday) should not apply. The Court so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89372 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12482
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a bus driver for the introduction of a
shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. Clause 9 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment agreement
specifies that staff who work turns of duty which vary either on a
rotating or alternating basis qualify for payment of a shift
premium at the rate of time and one sixth (payment applies only
Monday to Saturday - a special premium is paid for Sundays). The
claimant's weekly starting times are as follows:-
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
10.15 08.35 Rest Day Rest Day 07.10 07.00 07.25
The Union claimed that he should be in receipt of a shift
allowance as his work pattern satisfied the criteria for shift
allowance as per previous Labour Court recommendations (LCRs2862,
2942 and 3082 refer). The Company rejected the claim. Following
the failure of local discussions, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 16th March, 1989. A
conciliation conference on the 4th April was adjourned to allow
the parties consider their positions and on the 5th May the
Company wrote to the Union advising that in its view the claimant
did not qualify for a shift allowance under the regulations as his
working roster was neither alternating nor rotating. The matter
was subsequently referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 28th
June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The criteria for payment of shift premium is
well-established and has its background in Labour Court
Recommendations 2942 and 3082. Clause 10, paragraph (d) of
LCR3082 states:-
"This shift premium should eventually be one-sixth of
the basic time rate for all rotating or alternating
shifts worked on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive".
Furthermore, a letter dated the 18th October, 1973, signed by the
Staff Relations Manager, C.I.E., stated that the shift premium
will apply to duties which alternate, though not necessarily early
or late.
2. There are a number of duties with a similar work content which
qualify for shift premium (provincial rest-day reliefs). The
Company has acknowledged that the claimant's duties are a set of
reliefs and the existing composition of the reliefs are in line
with what the claimant performs (details supplied to the Court).
3. Should work be made available to the claimant on his rest day
he could be rostered to start up to and including 16.00 hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant operates an identical roster every week
with the same, day for day, starting times and fixed Tuesday
and Wednesday rest days (see page 1, paragraph 2 for details).
The maximum difference between starting times is 1 hour 35
minutes (Monday vis-a-vis Friday). There is neither an
element of alternation nor of rotation in this roster and the
maximum starting time tolerance of 1 hour 35 minutes does not
reflect the concept of early/late shift working.
2. At the conciliation conference the Union referred to sets
of duties known as provincial rest-day reliefs, on which shift
premium is paid and claimed that the claimant's roster is
comparable. Details of these rosters will show that there are
variances in the starting times ranging from 4 hours to 8
hours 50 minutes. These duties qualify for payment of shift
premium on the basis that there is a starting time difference
of four hours plus in each one.
3. It is unreasonable to expect the application of the shift
premium to a roster which is similar each day and each week,
with only a 1.50 hours difference in starting times.
Furthermore, concession of the claim would contravene the
spirit and intention of Clause 9 of the Terms and Conditions
of Employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court acknowledges the care which the parties to this
dispute took in presenting the background of previous Labour Court
recommendations of the early 1970s, the general operation of early
and late starting times, and the particular roster which the
claimant is currently operating. Further, the parties agreed that
the case did not come within the definition of a "rotating' shift,
thus the matter to be determined is whether or not it comes within
the definition of "alternating".
The Court is satisfied that the difference in starting times is
such that the premium which is paid for alternating shifts (Monday
to Saturday) should not apply. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st July, 1989 -----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman