Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89550 Case Number: AD8977 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC172/89 concerning payment of a meal allowance.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above and in the interest of equity I
recommend that both parties should seek to establish
agreement with a view to the modification of the Board on
the Cork/Urlingford Link whereby justification could be
arrived at to validate a payment of meal allowance of
#3.16 per day to the men involved. Such agreement to be
reached on or before one month of the receipt of this
recommendation".
3. On 4th August, 1989 the Company appealed the Recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court under section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on 25th October, 1989 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 10 of the National Agreement between the Company
and the unions specifies that a meal allowance is payable if a
driver or conductor is "booked off away from the home depot",
during one or more of the ordinary meal times. However, the
drivers on this service are not booked off away from the home
depot. A passenger courtesy stop of fifteen minutes at
Urlingford when the Cork and Dublin drivers change over does
not constitute a break as they are not booked off. Therefore,
payment of a meal allowance would be in breach of the National
Agreement.
2. The comparison between the Cork and Dublin drivers is not
valid. The Dublin drivers were originally paid the allowance
which was later withdrawn and then re-instated when the
rosters were revised. However, the Cork drivers were never in
receipt of the allowance and continue on their original
rosters. The operating conditions and local agreement in
operation in Cork and Dublin differ considerably. The fact
that the Dublin region could produce rosters which complied
with the National Agreement merely reflects the operations
from Broadstone and should not be considered as a precedent
for the Cork region. The Company is in a serious financial
situation and the additional cost to the Cork region of
conceding this claim would be approximately #3,000 per annum.
The establishment of such a precedent would have far reaching
effects.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
5. 1. Both the Dublin and Cork drivers operate identical
situations in relation to distances travelled between both
areas and the turn around time is exactly the same. The claim
was made in order to put Cork drivers on a par with their
counterparts in Dublin. There is clear discrimination by the
Company on this and the position cannot exist whereby
agreements are reached on a certain issue in one area and
management in another area decides that that agreement is
totally out of line. The Rights Commissioner investigated
this issue in great detail prior to making his recommendation
and this should be upheld.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court,
in the circumstances of this case, upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89550 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC172/89 concerning payment of a meal
allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. For some time a meal allowance was paid to the workers on the
Dublin/Urlingford link of the Dublin/Cork service. The Union
claimed on behalf of the workers on the Cork/Urlingford link of
the Cork/Dublin service that they should also be paid the meal
allowance. The allowance for the Dublin drivers was later
withdrawn as it was in contravention of the national agreement.
However, it was subsequently re-introduced following a revision of
rosters. Management rejected the Union's claim for the payment of
a meal allowance on the Cork/Dublin service and the matter was
referred to the Rights Commissioner's service for investigation
and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner investigated the
dispute on 9th February, 1989 and 3rd July, 1989 and issued the
following findings and recommendation-
" 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. I am satisfied that the original payment made on the
Dublin/Urlingford route was made in contravention of
the National Agreement on meal allowances.
2. I am also satisfied that a mechanism was arrived at,
following the Labour Court intervention, whereby this
payment on the Dublin/Urlingford Link was legitimised.
3. I therefore conclude that a stratagem was arrived at
whereby this payment could be continued on the
Dublin/Urlingford Service without invoking a breach of
the National Agreement on paid allowances.
4. I can appreciate the dissatisfaction of the Cork
drivers in seeing their colleagues on the
Dublin/Urlingford Link receiving a payment in pretty
identical circumstances where such a payment is denied
to them.
Recommendation
In the light of the above and in the interest of equity I
recommend that both parties should seek to establish
agreement with a view to the modification of the Board on
the Cork/Urlingford Link whereby justification could be
arrived at to validate a payment of meal allowance of
#3.16 per day to the men involved. Such agreement to be
reached on or before one month of the receipt of this
recommendation".
3. On 4th August, 1989 the Company appealed the Recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court under section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on 25th October, 1989 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 10 of the National Agreement between the Company
and the unions specifies that a meal allowance is payable if a
driver or conductor is "booked off away from the home depot",
during one or more of the ordinary meal times. However, the
drivers on this service are not booked off away from the home
depot. A passenger courtesy stop of fifteen minutes at
Urlingford when the Cork and Dublin drivers change over does
not constitute a break as they are not booked off. Therefore,
payment of a meal allowance would be in breach of the National
Agreement.
2. The comparison between the Cork and Dublin drivers is not
valid. The Dublin drivers were originally paid the allowance
which was later withdrawn and then re-instated when the
rosters were revised. However, the Cork drivers were never in
receipt of the allowance and continue on their original
rosters. The operating conditions and local agreement in
operation in Cork and Dublin differ considerably. The fact
that the Dublin region could produce rosters which complied
with the National Agreement merely reflects the operations
from Broadstone and should not be considered as a precedent
for the Cork region. The Company is in a serious financial
situation and the additional cost to the Cork region of
conceding this claim would be approximately #3,000 per annum.
The establishment of such a precedent would have far reaching
effects.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
5. 1. Both the Dublin and Cork drivers operate identical
situations in relation to distances travelled between both
areas and the turn around time is exactly the same. The claim
was made in order to put Cork drivers on a par with their
counterparts in Dublin. There is clear discrimination by the
Company on this and the position cannot exist whereby
agreements are reached on a certain issue in one area and
management in another area decides that that agreement is
totally out of line. The Rights Commissioner investigated
this issue in great detail prior to making his recommendation
and this should be upheld.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court,
in the circumstances of this case, upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__14th__November,__1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman