LCR12433

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8961 Case Number: LCR12433 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN (DUBLIN BUS) - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION;C.I.E. GROUP OF UNIONS

Subject:
Claim for the restoration of travel facilities.

Recommendation:
5. Having considered the further submissions made by the parties,
the Court recommends that in the unusual circumstances of this
case the two claimants be transferred to the employment of Irish
Rail at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime the Court
recommends that the Company by some means provide them with the
travel facilities which they would receive as employees of Irish
Rail.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD8961 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12433


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67

PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN (DUBLIN BUS)

and

BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION
C.I.E. GROUP OF UNIONS

SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the restoration of travel facilities.

BACKGROUND:
2. Rail staff in C.I.E. have always enjoyed travel concessions
even before the Company was founded in 1947 (details supplied to
the Court). This claim concerns two workers who were employed in
the building maintenance section of the Company. They worked at
various locations including the railways, provincial and city bus
depots. They were on the payroll of the Chief Engineer's
Department (Rail). They enjoyed the travel facilities available
to rail workers including free travel on British Rail. The
Company claims that the British Rail passes were issued to them in
error because the workers concerned were roadworkers with Dublin
City Services and as such were not entitled to be issued with
British Rail passes (details supplied to the Court). The
Transport (Re-organisation of C.I.E.) Act, 1986 provided for the
formation by C.I.E. of three subsidiary companies - Irish Rail,
Irish Bus, and Dublin Bus. In January, 1987 the workers were
re-assigned to Dublin Bus, and their letters of appointment stated
that their scale of pay and conditions of employment would be the
same as those obtaining prior to the re-organisation. When one of
the worker's applied for his international travelling pass to go
abroad in 1988 he was advised by Management that as a Dublin Bus
employee he was not entitled to such a pass. The Union has
claimed restoration of the travelling facilities previously
enjoyed by the workers, or that the workers should be transfered
to Irish Rail. The Company has rejected the claim. Local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the
23rd September, 1988. Conciliation Conferences were held on the
5th December, 1988 and 17th March, 1989, but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st
February, 1989. Court hearings were held on the 13th February,
1989 and 1st June, 1989.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were assigned work in Dublin City
Bus depots in 1976. There was nothing unusual about this, as
all maintenance work was carried out through the Clerk of
Works, Chief Engineer's Office (Rail) and the employees were
on this section's payroll. They enjoyed the normal conditions
of rail employees. The formation of Dublin Bus in 1986 did
not change their conditions of employment, nor were they
notified of any change in these conditions which included the
travel pass facility. However one of the workers was refused
his international travel pass on applying for it in 1988
resulting in his being denied travel on British and
international rail. The resulting loss to the employee and
his wife for a visit to Britain was #170. The international
travel pass covered the employee and his wife even after
retirement therefore the estimated loss is considerable.
There is a deduction for this facility of 30 pence per week
from wages and to this present date it is still being made.
The worker should be compensated in the amount of #170 for his
travel expenses in 1988.

2. There are at present a number of categories within Dublin
Bus currently enjoying the facility of the travel pass
(details supplied to the Court). In an effort to resolve the
dispute the Unions have put forward the following proposals:-

(i) Restore the men to the Chief Engineer's (Rail)
payroll and restore their rights.

(ii) Reassign the workers to Irish Rail because of
their long service.

3. The unilateral action by the Company in withdrawing travel
facilities, enjoyed for such a long period by the workers
concerned, was not only petty and discriminatory but was in
breach of agreements and of their previous rights, not only in
the industrial relations area, but also in their legal
entitlements as underpinned by legislation. When the Unions
wrote to the Company protesting that its action was in breach
of legislation setting up the Companies it responded by letter
of 21st June, 1988 (details supplied to the Court). The
Company maintained that it was not in breach of any
legislation "because the restrictions regarding the issue of
travel facilities of road craft workers applied prior to the
vesting date." It must be reiterated however that the workers
were under the control of the Chief Engineer's Department
(Rail) and enjoyed free travel facilities as part of their
conditions of employment. Although under this department's
authority they were permanently assigned to working in Dublin
Bus garages and depots. On the formation of Dublin Bus these
workers were informed that they were now under direct control
of the Company and their cross channel travel passes were
withdrawn.


3. 4. The Company in its letter of 21st June, 1988 to the Unions
stated "the granting of travel facilities on other
administrations services is a matter for each such Company to
decide on. The criterion used in determining the eligibility
for travel facilities in such cases is mainly based on the
nature of the work undertaken by staff seeking the
concession." This statement is not wholly true because at the
present time both clerical and engineering operative staff in
Dublin Bus, who prior to the break up of C.I.E. enjoyed cross
channel concessionary travel, still continue to enjoy these
facilities. The Company has also stated "despite requests and
representations to British Rail to grant travel facilities to
road craft workers, they have made it clear that they are not
agreeable to granting facilities on their services to such
staff. The building trade craftsmen employed by Dublin Bus
are therefore covered by this British Rail ruling." The Union
contends that the engineering craftworkers referred to by the
Company are quite different to the workers involved in this
claim in that they have higher rates of pay and never enjoyed,
as the claimants did, cross channel travel facilities. There
are in fact a small number of engineering craftsmen employed
by Dublin Bus who have enjoyed and continue to enjoy these
cross channel travel facilities. The people referred to are
ex Great Northern Railway staff who were transferred to C.I.E.
some years ago.

5. The Company is in breach of the Transport Act, 1986,
specifically Section 14(6) (details supplied to the Court)
which provides inter alia "no such variation shall operate to
worsen the scales of pay and conditions of service applicable
to such persons immediately before the vesting day." The
trade unions who were involved in the drafting of this section
of the legislation were well aware of the different wage rates
and conditions in different sections of C.I.E. A worker who,
on the break up of the Company, if moved into a section with
lesser rates and conditions could not simply be given these
rates and conditions because they existd in that section prior
to the vesting date. The Unions were only informed by the
Company after the travel facilities were removed and their
suggestions as to how the dispute could be resolved were
rejected by the Company. The Unions have also proposed that
the Company purchase tickets from British Rail when due or
required. The transfer of Undertakings Act in Great Britain
confers upon a British Rail employee the right to bring his
entitlements with him on transfer to another Company. In
practical application this means that an employee who for
example was transferred to a private bus company, would have
his travel entitlements purchased from British Rail by the bus
company at a negotiated price. Sealink, which is now a
private company and whose employees carried their travel
arrangements from their original company, issue travel coupons
to workers no doubt at negotiated prices. Other companies
(details supplied to the Court) have also maintained this
arrangement. The proposals as already outlined by the Union
are reasonable and should be accepted by the Company.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The granting of foreign concessions is not within C.I.E.'s
power and where these concessions are enjoyed by employees the
terms on which they are enjoyed, are set out by the railway or
shipping company on whose lines the concessions are offered.
Because of this it has always been a feature of employment
with C.I.E. that employment in certain grades, departments, or
on certain types of work debarred employees from receiving a
range of travel facilities. When staff move from section to
section they lose or gain travel concessions appropriate to
their work and work locations. The question of retaining
travel facilities appropriate to the rail section when
transferred to the road or the reverse has already been before
the Court and in Recommendation No. 9090 of September, 1984,
the Court did not see fit to alter the practice.


2. Since 1977 the Unions catering for road workers have been
pressurising the Company for travel facilities on British
Rail. Over the years the Company has made strenuous efforts
to get British Rail passes for staff who do not enjoy them
however British Rail would make no concession. One of the
reasons for the refusal was the repercussive effect on British
Rail of conceding the facility. The staff of London Transport
exceed the number employed by the C.I.E. Group.


3. The workers concerned were transferred to Dublin City Bus
Services. (Details supplied). Dublin City Bus services which
is now Bus Atha Cliath did not have a building trade payroll
and for administrative convenience they were retained on the
payroll of the Chief Civil Engineer (Rail). Because of this
they were paid at Broadstone by the Chief Civil Engineer's
Clerk of Works and when they were seeking free passes on
British Rail they handed the application to the Rail Clerk of
Works who in turn passed it on to Staff Relations. The issue
of foreign passes was controlled by Staff Relations and
because the application came from the Rail Clerk of Works the
Staff Relations Manager was not aware that they were in actual
fact road workers with Dublin City Services and the passes
were issued. In the normal course of events applications from
the staff of Dublin City Services were channelled through the
Personnel Office in O'Connell Street and if this practice had
been followed it would have been obvious that the craftsmen
were roadworkers and they would not have been issued with
British Rail passes.


4. When the incorrect issue of British Rail passes came to
light (details supplied) the Unions proposed that the matter
may be resolved by:



(i) the issue of British Rail passes to the men
concerned,

or

(ii) the transfer of the workers back to the Chief Civil
Engineer's Department.


As regards the Unions first proposal the Company is not in a
position to grant British Rail travel as this is covered by an
agreement with that company and despite C.I.E.'s best efforts
British Rail will not agree to granting travel facilities to
craftsmen engaged in road duties. There are over thirty
separate railways and shipping lines involved in the agreement
for the exchange of travel facilities. The companies who are
party to the arrangements are expected to act with the utmost
good faith or ensure that the conditions attached to the
travel facilities are scrupulously observed. Any deliberate
contravention of the regulations which came to light would
result in the Company being expelled from the international
arrangements, and the loss of free and reduced travel
facilities to all the staff of the Company. For the Company
to issue British Rail passes to the three craftsmen would be
unethical and would put in jeopardy the free and reduced
travel arrangements not only with British Rail but with the
other continental companies. As regards the second proposal
from the Union it was stated at conciliation that the workers
had never wished to work in the bus section and that they were
unwilling transferees. As far as the Company is aware this is
not the case, and no objections were lodged with the Company
about the workers' transfers. The work of the building
craftsmen in the bus section is undemanding and largely
unsupervised. Following the conciliation conference the
Company made enquiries to see if the workers could be
accommodated in Irish Rail. The Company was informed that
they had no capacity to accommodate the three workers as they
were involved in a total rationalisation of building trade
staff which would reduce existing staff levels by 50%.


4. 5. The Union has claimed that the Company is in breach of the
Transport Act, 1986. If it is, which is denied, this would be
a matter for the civil courts and would not come within the
purview of the Labour Court. The basic issue before the Court
is that free and reduced travel on British Rail be restored to
the two men. For a number of years, while employed in Dublin
City Bus Services through an administrative error they were
issued with free passes on British Rail. When the matter came
to light the issue of passes ceased.





RECOMMENDATION:

5. Having considered the further submissions made by the parties,
the Court recommends that in the unusual circumstances of this
case the two claimants be transferred to the employment of Irish
Rail at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime the Court
recommends that the Company by some means provide them with the
travel facilities which they would receive as employees of Irish
Rail.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
12th June, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.