Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89698 Case Number: LCR12617 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the reason the claimants were
dropped from the courier panel for 1989 season was due to the loss
of business. The Court also notes that they suffered no loss of
earnings from the Company. A loss of income was sustained but
neither party could quantify that loss.
In the circumstances and in view of the possibility that they
would be re-instated in the future the Court recommends an
ex-gratia payment of #500 to each of the three claimants who
operated 32 and over tour days in 1988.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89698 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12617
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns six couriers who were employed by the
Company on a seasonal basis each year to work on various coach
tours which were two person operated. The couriers were utilised
on certain brochure tours and the six workers concerned were part
of two panels which were provided for this purpose. The main
panel of three workers operated 81, 44 and 32 tour days in 1988.
The auxiliary panel of three workers operate 8 tour days each. In
1989 the Company indicated that it was no longer in a position to
employ couriers on tours because of economic circumstances and
changing trends in the coach tour business. The Company stated
that henceforth it would operate one person tours and consequently
the workers concerned were dropped from the courier panel. The
Union submitted a claim for compensation for loss earnings on
behalf of the workers. The Company rejected the claim on the
grounds that the couriers were redeployed to their regular
conductor duties and suffered no loss of earnings. Local
discussions failed to resolve the issue which was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 21st April, 1989.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 22nd May and 25th
September, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 3rd October, 1989. A Court hearing was held on 23rd
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has dispensed with the services of the
couriers without any consultation with the Union, which came
to know of the Company's decision to operate one person tours
through a third party. The workers concerned have many years
service as couriers, and have built up a vast store of
knowledge on the historical and cultural aspects of the
country. The workers have acquired this knowledge in their
own time through their own efforts and are now dispensed with
unceremoniously.
2. The tours have not ceased, they are still in operation on
a one person basis. The very least the Company could do would
be to compensate the workers concerned for the loss of this
promotional position which they held. If this situation had
occurred in any other section of the Company then the
promotional position would be maintained. Even in the
conversion to one person operation of normal services, the
Company took into account people who lost their route and
compensation was offered. However the workers concerned who
have given a great deal to the Company in the promotion of
tourism have received no consideration.
3. It should be noted that in 1989 some of the Company tours
employed couriers who had previously retired on voluntary
severance yet no consideration was given to the workers
concerned who were taken from the tour panel. The Union does
not foresee a situation where two person tours will be
operated, considers that the loss is permanent, and in these
circumstances claims that compensation is warranted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification for compensation in respect of
loss of earnings in this case. The Company operates the tour
services under contract to C.I.E. Tours International and has
no control over what requirements this company may have for
services. No tour couriers were required for the 1989 season
and the Company considers this to be a loss of business for
which traditionally no compensation has been payable. There
was a possibility if tour requirements changed that the
couriers might again be used at a future date.
2. The workers concerned have suffered no loss of earnings as
the Company provided alternative work. In order to remain in
business the Company was forced to reduce costs and tailor
services to meet demands. In 1988 the tours operation
suffered a loss of over #1 million, and the future direction
of this business is at present being examined.
3. The removal of the tours couriers is in no way similar to
the introduction of one person buses in the city services, as
claimed by the Union. The manning of tours has always been a
matter for the organiser or hiring organisation.
4. The Company is in a serious financial situation and in
1988 expenditure exceeded revenue by #4.32 million. The
Company could not therefore fund compensation for loss of
earnings in situations where the loss was brought about by
loss of business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the reason the claimants were
dropped from the courier panel for 1989 season was due to the loss
of business. The Court also notes that they suffered no loss of
earnings from the Company. A loss of income was sustained but
neither party could quantify that loss.
In the circumstances and in view of the possibility that they
would be re-instated in the future the Court recommends an
ex-gratia payment of #500 to each of the three claimants who
operated 32 and over tour days in 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
3rd November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.