Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89267 Case Number: AD8944 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. BC 378A/88 concerning a claim by a worker for compensation in respect of loss of shift.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I recommend that Bus Eireann
pay to the worker the sum of #1,234 being the equivalent
of one year's shift allowance."
5. The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. The Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Acts, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Cork on 24th May, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker concerned does not qualify for shift allowance
in accordance with clause 9 of the Road Passenger Agreement.
His operating duties do not conform to the conditions
pertaining to the payment of shift allowance i.e. there is
neither an element of alternation nor of rotation in the
present roster.
2. The worker concerned has not suffered any loss of earnings
as a result of the introduction of the revised service. In
fact his earnings have been enhanced as there is an element of
overtime built into his normal weekly roster (details supplied
to the Court). The practice governing compensation, for loss
of earnings in Bus Eireann has been well established for a
number of years and the principle upheld by the Court on many
occasions.
3. It is a requirement of transport operation, such as Bus
Eireann's, to respond quickly to changes in the market and to
provide the service required by its customers. If, when it
becomes necessary to alter a service, due to loss of business,
as in this instance, the Company is required to pay
compensation to staff even though earnings have not been
reduced, it would be extremely costly and difficult to
maintain efficient and cost effective services.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. While there is a small element of extra earnings involved,
it doesn't reflect the extra work because he has lost his
shift pay allowance. He now has to work a much longer day as
the new roster contains an element of the two boards involved.
2. The worker concerned had been operating the two shifts for
twelve years and it is grossly unfair to reduce his earnings
in this fashion particularly in view of the fact that he now
operates two boards. The worker has given a lifetime of
dedicated service to the Company and it is a shabby way to
treat him. He had an early turn of duty every second week
which gave him some social life plus his shift pay.
3. The Court should restore the shift premium to him for the
short time he has left in the job (2 years). While Management
may argue it is the principle of the thing - there is not much
point in winning principles and losing loyalty or creating bad
feeling.
DECISION:
8. Particularly having regard to the fact that the driver in
question suffered no loss due to the change the Court is of the
opinion that the Company's appeal should he upheld. The Court so
decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89267 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. BC 378A/88 concerning a claim by a worker for
compensation in respect of loss of shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 11th July, 1988 a morning and afternoon service was
in operation from Cork to Roscrea on the Cork/Dublin interlink
service. Two drivers rotated week about week on the morning and
afternoon services and were paid a shift allowance.
3. On the 11th July, 1988 the afternoon service was discontinued
and a revised morning interlink service Cork to Athlone was
introduced. The worker concerned was one of the two drivers who
previously rotated morning and afternoons and was retained on the
new service. The Company discontinued the payment of a shift
allowance. The Union claimed retention of the shift allowance.
This claim was rejected by the Company.
4. The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation held
on the 9th February, 1989 the Rights Commissioner issued the
following findings and recommendation dated 23rd February, 1989:
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties, I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. While I note that it is the contention of the trade union
that a precedent exists within the Limerick area for the
retention of shift payment in circumstances where shift
working is no longer in operation I do not, however,
recognise this as a stable or satisfactory arrangement.
2. On the other hand, while it is the contention of the
Company that the worker's earnings has been protected,
indeed it is claimed that he is now in receipt of an
additional twelve pounds per week over and above what he
earned previously, I feel that there is merit in the
trade unions contention that in order to achieve this
level of earnings it is necessary for him to work
considerably longer hours per week.
3. In summary I hold that given the long period of time
during which the worker operated on the shift basis and
given also the undesirability, as I see it, for the
maintenance of shift payment in circumstances where such
shift work is no longer in operation, equity and justice
would indicate that some compensation is warranted but
not in the form sought by the trade union.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I recommend that Bus Eireann
pay to the worker the sum of #1,234 being the equivalent
of one year's shift allowance."
5. The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. The Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Acts, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Cork on 24th May, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker concerned does not qualify for shift allowance
in accordance with clause 9 of the Road Passenger Agreement.
His operating duties do not conform to the conditions
pertaining to the payment of shift allowance i.e. there is
neither an element of alternation nor of rotation in the
present roster.
2. The worker concerned has not suffered any loss of earnings
as a result of the introduction of the revised service. In
fact his earnings have been enhanced as there is an element of
overtime built into his normal weekly roster (details supplied
to the Court). The practice governing compensation, for loss
of earnings in Bus Eireann has been well established for a
number of years and the principle upheld by the Court on many
occasions.
3. It is a requirement of transport operation, such as Bus
Eireann's, to respond quickly to changes in the market and to
provide the service required by its customers. If, when it
becomes necessary to alter a service, due to loss of business,
as in this instance, the Company is required to pay
compensation to staff even though earnings have not been
reduced, it would be extremely costly and difficult to
maintain efficient and cost effective services.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. While there is a small element of extra earnings involved,
it doesn't reflect the extra work because he has lost his
shift pay allowance. He now has to work a much longer day as
the new roster contains an element of the two boards involved.
2. The worker concerned had been operating the two shifts for
twelve years and it is grossly unfair to reduce his earnings
in this fashion particularly in view of the fact that he now
operates two boards. The worker has given a lifetime of
dedicated service to the Company and it is a shabby way to
treat him. He had an early turn of duty every second week
which gave him some social life plus his shift pay.
3. The Court should restore the shift premium to him for the
short time he has left in the job (2 years). While Management
may argue it is the principle of the thing - there is not much
point in winning principles and losing loyalty or creating bad
feeling.
DECISION:
8. Particularly having regard to the fact that the driver in
question suffered no loss due to the change the Court is of the
opinion that the Company's appeal should he upheld. The Court so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
9th June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.