Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89724 Case Number: LCR12653 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - SHOP WORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP |
The introduction of a viability plan/productivity deal for Engineering Operatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered all aspects of this issue, including the
history of starting-time for night shift, the protracted on/off
bargaining on productivity, the change in productivity benefit
ratios, the practicality of raising work standards within the
present working hours, the financial position of the Company, the
proposals for a reduction in overall costs and the
appropriateness or otherwise of the offsets claimed by the
Company, the Court recommends that the Unions accept the Company
proposals dated 1st August, 1989 and the related payments subject
to their amendment as follows:-
- the starting time for night shift should be 22.30
hours
- the payment to the Engineering Operatives resulting
from the agreement should be #11 per week.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89724 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12653
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
SHOP WORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. The introduction of a viability plan/productivity deal for
Engineering Operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, following the restructuring of the Company, C.I.E.
sought centralised discussions on productivity for Engineering
Operatives employed in Iarnrod Eireann, Bus Eireann and Dublin
Bus. Some of the workers were not agreeable to centralised
discussions and in December, 1987, Dublin Bus held a meeting with
its Shop Workers Trade Union Group to discuss details of a
viability plan for its own Engineering Operatives. A number of
meetings were held but the Company proposals were rejected in late
1988. Further discussions took place at Labour Court conciliation
conferences held between 15th February, 1989 and 16th October,
1989. Proposals emerged (details dated 1st August, 1989 supplied
to the Court) which were generally acceptable to the parties.
However the Group of Unions did not accept the Company's
computation of savings arising from the viability/productivity
plan. According to the Company these would provide an increase in
pay of #7.58 per week while Union calculations would justify an
approximate increase of #12.40 weekly (on a 50/50 split basis).
The Group also rejected Clauses 2 and 5 of the proposals, details
as follows:-
Clause 2 "Night staff will work to the rosters as
detailed in Appendix 2"
Clause 5 "Night Servicing will commence at 22.00 hours
and operatives will work the full eight hour shift"
The Group of Unions are of the opinion that if there is an
acceptable solution to Clause 5 and to the money terms, the
problems associated with the rosters (Clause 2) could be resolved
directly between the parties. The Company position is that any
deal concluded would have to embody the earlier start (i.e. Clause
5) for night operatives. As no agreement was reached on these
issues both parties agreed on 16th October, 1989, to a full Labour
Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th
November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The value of the productivity savings in the new
proposals is estimated (on 50/50 split basis) by the Unions as
justifying an increase in pay of #12.40 per week. Labour
Court Recommendation No 11845 has conceded the principle of a
70/30 split on some productivity savings in Iaranrod Eireann.
The 70/30 split principle has been extended to Bus Eireann and
the same principle should now be extended to some of the
savings in Dublin Bus, resulting in a pay increase to
Engineering Operatives, in excess of #12.40 per week.
2. There is general agreement between the Company and
Unions on the amount of gross savings generating from the
viability/productivity plan. The Unions do not accept some
deductions as costed and included by the Company (details
supplied to the Court) when calculating their net savings.
3. Clause 5 which has become known as the early start
clause is the most controversial proposal made by the Company.
The workers concerned perceive the proposal to be so
retrogressive and anti-social that the Unions have been
instructed not to make a concession on it. The Labour Court
investigated this matter in the 1960's and advanced the
starting time to the present 11.30 p.m. Company proposals
would further restrict night operatives already limited social
time. Workers would be finishing work so early in the morning
that it would be useless to them in terms of family life and
social activities. Present arrangements allows workers
valuable social time and gives a finish time suitable to the
availability of public transport.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Based on potential savings and provided that all
elements of the proposed agreement dated 1st August, 1989, are
implemented, the Company has offered to increase basic pay by
#7.58 per week. (This figure is based on a 50/50 split
basis). Government Policy is such that the Company must
reduce its dependency on subvention by 3.5% in real terms each
year until 1992. The Company has had to pay the second phase
of the 27th Pay Round from its own resources.
2. The increased pay is dependent on reduced staffing
levels. In order to achieve the necessary staff reductions
full use would have to be made of the productive time
available on the night shift.
3. Engineeing Operatives current start time of 23.30 hours
has the effect of:-
(A) producing an inordinate amount of ineffective
time and
(B) a resulting unacceptable standard of cleaning.
The present duty of an Engineering Operative is for 8 hours
daily (40 hour week) and the operations of the Company dictate
that buses must be available for traffic at 06.00 hours at the
latest. Night staff commence duty at 23.30 and finish at
07.45, i.e. long after the fleet have gone into traffic. As
the fleet is required from 06.00 the night staff is, as a
result, ineffective from that time until 07.45. In the time
available from 11.30 to 06.00 only the basic cleaning is
carried out. In order to meet objectives the latest possible
starting time would be 22.00 hours. This would ensure
productive night working. The earlier start would have the
effect of reducing staffing numbers thereby producing the
savings necessary to fund the productive night working. It
would also ensure that the necessary high standard of
cleanliness is achieved before the fleet operates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered all aspects of this issue, including the
history of starting-time for night shift, the protracted on/off
bargaining on productivity, the change in productivity benefit
ratios, the practicality of raising work standards within the
present working hours, the financial position of the Company, the
proposals for a reduction in overall costs and the
appropriateness or otherwise of the offsets claimed by the
Company, the Court recommends that the Unions accept the Company
proposals dated 1st August, 1989 and the related payments subject
to their amendment as follows:-
- the starting time for night shift should be 22.30
hours
- the payment to the Engineering Operatives resulting
from the agreement should be #11 per week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
22nd November, 1989 ---------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman