Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8987 Case Number: LCR12383 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to allocate specific work to cross channel service drivers' on three "spare" days per week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all the points made to it in
submissions by the parties, and noted the additional information
given in evidence before the Court.
The Court is satisfied that the Company's proposal is reasonable
in the circumstances as in particular it does not involve any loss
of earnings. The Court is reinforced in its view that the
proposal is reasonable taking into account the increasing
competition facing the Company.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company's proposal be
accepted by all concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8987 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12383
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to allocate specific
work to cross channel service drivers' on three "spare" days per
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a daily Galway/London bus service. There
are three drivers employed on the Galway/Dublin leg of the
journey. One of the drivers is a member of the Union. The Union
representing the other two drivers has accepted the proposal. The
three drivers work a six day week, and the rostering arrangements
are such that it gives rise (between the three drivers) to four
"spare days" on which spare duties can be carried out. Following
the implementation of L.C.R. No. 11884, one of these spare days is
now used to cover the Wednesday rest day on the Galway/Dublin
domestic service. The Company now wishes to allocate specific
duties to the cross channel drivers to cover the other three
"spare" days. The Company proposal is as follows:
Thursday - Operate Service No. 419 A
Galway/Clifden.
Friday - Cover rest day on Service No. 415 A
Galway/Cork.
Saturday - Operate Service No. 419 A
Galway/Clifden.
The Company's proposal would not apply during the peak summer
season, when the two day per week Galway/Clifden service is
replaced by a daily service. At this time, the spare dates on the
cross channel drivers' boards would be utilised to cover
additional cross channel services which operate during the peak
summer season.
The Union objects to the proposal. It accepts the right of the
Company to roster the drivers on the Wednesday, since this was the
outcome of L.C.R. 11884. The other days however, are in the
category of spare work, and the Union contends that any of the
spare men or those on boards 1-12 are entitled to apply for it.
Agreement could not be reached on the issue at local level, and on
9th January, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 24th January, 1989. No agreement was reached and on 13th
February, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Galway on 18th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals essentially involve a
displacement. They would mean that the spare days of the
cross channel drivers would be utilised by taking work which
is proper to the regular drivers at the depot. The proposal
is both unnecessary and unfair.
2. A number of other drivers will have first call on the
duties which the Company is proposing (details supplied to the
Court). The Clifden duty involves 2 days a week, except in
Summer when it becomes a weekly service. At this point, the
cross channel drivers will have to be withdrawn, and the duty
will again be filled by others. The Union has no objection to
the cross channel drivers being marked up for spare duties
when they are spare. In this context, there is likely to be
plenty of work for them to do. It is standard practice to
have spare content on drivers' boards, and Management is well
aware of this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must roster staff in the most efficient and
cost effective manner possible and has the right to alter the
existing operating boards of the drivers concerned provided
the required seven days notice has been given. The proposal
represents the most economical arrangement in view of the
existing restrictions relating to the utilisation of the three
cross channel service drivers, on their three spare days. The
proposal to utilise the drivers to work on the Galway/Clifden
service on Thursday and Saturday appears to have been accepted
by all concerned in a 1985 re-organisation though not
implemented at that time (details supplied to the Court). In
this case, the three drivers concerned have personally
welcomed the current proposal and the I.T.G.W.U. which
represents two of the three drivers has accepted the proposal.
2. The work which the Company proposes to allocate to the
cross channel drivers on Thursday, Friday and Saturday is more
appropriate to marked-in service drivers than to the spare
drivers who currently perform it. Labour Court Recommendation
No. 11884 set a precedent for the allocation of specific
marked-in work to the cross channel drivers on their "spare"
days.
3. The Company is under severe financial pressure (details
supplied to the Court). It must use the most effective
methods of rostering and cost control to maintain the
viability of services and to protect the jobs of drivers in
Galway, where the Company already faces strong competition
from private operators (details supplied to the Court). The
Union should withdraw its objection to the Company's proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all the points made to it in
submissions by the parties, and noted the additional information
given in evidence before the Court.
The Court is satisfied that the Company's proposal is reasonable
in the circumstances as in particular it does not involve any loss
of earnings. The Court is reinforced in its view that the
proposal is reasonable taking into account the increasing
competition facing the Company.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company's proposal be
accepted by all concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
10th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.