Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89537 Case Number: LCR12561 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of a driver for payment for rest-time exceeding two hours on a special duty.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89537 RECOMMENDATION NO.LCR12561
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a driver for payment for rest-time
exceeding two hours on a special duty.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 30th July, 1988 the Company created a number of
special duties to transport passengers to a concert in Cork.
Tickets for these journeys were sold in advance and collected by
the driver.The Union on behalf of one of the drivers claims that
under the terms of a 1981 agreement on special services the
driver should have qualified for payment for any break in excess
of two hoursand for 20% bonus. The Company's position is that
of the seventeen special duties involved for that concert five
were private-hire and twelve were waybill specials, both of
which are covered by an agreement whereby the driver breaks
with the service and is therefore on an unpaid break, with meal
allowances, for the duration of the stop at the destination
point. No agreement was reached and on 20th January, 1989 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 27th February and
22nd June, 1989 at which no progress was made. The matter was
subsequently referred to the Rights Commissioners' service,
however, the Company declined to attend. On 1st August, 1989
the matter was referred to theLabour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th
September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. On the day of the concert, the drivers were rostered to
report for work at 6.00am spare and were told that they were on
standby for driving to Cork. All previous work of this nature
had operated on terms negotiated between local unions and
management, however, in this case no negotiations took place.
Under the terms of the 1981 Agreement for special services
(details supplied to the Court) a spare man would have to be
paid for any break in excess of two hours and would also qualify
for a 20% bonus. The Company claimed afterwards that these
services operated as private hire and therefore the maximum
breaks clause was eliminated and the bonus payable was reduced
to 10%.
3.2. The real issue is the fact that management has ignored the
1981 Agreement and the possibility exists that in future in the
case of special services, management will declare a service to
be a private one if it works out cheaper than on ordinary rates.
There is no precedent for the Company to hire its own buses and
then to operate them as a service from its own depot. In this
instance,the duty was not a genuine private hire and the 1981
Agreement should be upheld.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The special duties on that day were private hires and
waybill specials. Both these duties are covered by an agreement
whereby the driver breaks with the service. Of the seventeen
drivers involved, all of whom were paid by the same method, only
one has claimed that he was incorrectly paid. There are
situations where it would be in order to make the payment
claimed. A driver marked spare for a day's work and who had
completed a journey and was then required to work again at a
later stage would be paid for any time in excess of two hours
however long the break. This is due to the fact that at any
time during the day the driver can be called upon to work.
However, in this case, the return trip to Cork was the only work
involved and therefore such a payment is not in order. The
driver concerned, who was on a waybill special,does not qualify
for such a payment.
4.2. Concession of this claim would have serious repercussive
effects as a precedent would be set for all such future duties.
It would also then be uneconomical for the Company to operate
such services. The Company is in a serious financial situation
and the concession of any cost increasing claims, as well as
being contrary to the agreement under the 27th wage round,
would only worsen the position of the Company in a competitive
business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
Deputy Chairman
19th September, 1989.
U. M. / M. F.