Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9047 Case Number: LCR12805 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union on behalf of 700 part-time school bus drivers for parity of pay and conditions of employment with full-time bus drivers employed by Bus Eireann.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has examined the claims made by the Union on behalf
of its members employed on a part-time basis by Bus Eireann as
drivers of school buses.
The pay part of this claim has been before the Court in previous
years (1971, LCR 2594; 1973, LCR3225; 1978, LCR4842; 1982,
LCR7551; 1983, LCR8105), but on this occasion the Court has had to
take into account the agreement of November, 1988 between the
parties which is quite specific in regard to
"Agreement to co-operate in achieving the required reduction
in the cost of the School Transport Scheme;
the curtailment of additional cost burdens on the Company
and self-financing arrangements to cover any unavoidable
cost increases."
Therefore, having regard to the terms of the 1988 Agreement, the
Court is precluded from considering the cost increasing claims
during the period of the Agreement. Accordingly the Court does
not recommend concession of the claims.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9047 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12805
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union on behalf of 700 part-time school bus
drivers for parity of pay and conditions of employment with
full-time bus drivers employed by Bus Eireann.
BACKGROUND:
2. The operation of the Schools Transport Scheme is fully
administered by Bus Eireann. It employs 700 part-time school bus
drivers directly and 1,500 private operators using their own
vehicles under contract.
3. On the 26th October, 1988 the Union lodged a claim with the
Company for the following:
(1) The hourly rate of part-time school bus drivers be
increased on a par with that of regular drivers.
(2) Sickness benefit scheme to be introduced for the workers
concerned.
(3) Pension Scheme to be introduced.
(4) Free bus passes for the workers concerned and their
families.
(5) That new buses which are being introduced be distributed
on a seniority basis.
The Union subsequently included a claim for uniforms to be
provided.
4. A meeting to discuss the claims was held on 16th December,
following which the Company wrote to the Union outlining its
financial position and pointed out that the Department of
Education had reduced its funding of the School Transport Scheme
by #1.5 million in 1988 and that there would be a further
reduction in 1989. The Company also stated inter alia that most
of the claims were of a cost increasing nature and were in breach
of the Programme for National Recovery which precluded cost
increasing claims arising since the expiry of the previous
agreement on 30th June, 1988.
5. The claims were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 17th January, 1989. A conciliation conference was
held on 10th April, 1989. At the conciliation conference the
Company asked the Union to withdraw the claims as it was having
difficulty with the Department of Education regarding the
financing of the Scheme. The Company undertook to do something
about the allocation of new buses. Following a letter from the
industrial relations officer this item was resolved. The Union
reserved its position on the other elements of the claim.
6. In November, 1989 the Union reactivated the claim and the
matter was once again the subject of a conciliation conference
held on 11th December, 1989. As no agreement was reached the
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 8th
March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Pay Parity: The workers consider that as some of them
have long service (up to 21 years) they should have the same
conditions of employment with that of regular drivers. In
fact with that kind of service they should be considered
full-time rather than "part-time temporary." The school buses
have always been a one man operation. However unlike the full
time drivers in Bus Eireann they are not in receipt of any
allowance despite driving the same large capacity buses in
some cases.
2. In 1974 the school bus drivers hourly rate was 4p an hour
greater than that of the service drivers rate. Somewhere
around 1979 the hourly rate changed which left school bus
drivers falling behind in the rates of pay (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The workers concerned have contributed to savings in the
School Transport Scheme and have given great flexibility in
order to help cope with the cutbacks. In a large number of
areas they drive larger buses which travel further distances
and collect more children than heretofore. Yet nothing out of
these savings has accrued, by way of additional payments, to
the workers concerned.
4. Sick Pay Benefit: Workers with 21 years' service to a
Company should not be deprived of deriving benefit from its
Sick Pay Scheme.
5. Pension Scheme: In virtually every other good employment
within this State workers are covered by a Pension Scheme.
After giving a life time service to school bus work the
drivers should be entitled to the same benefits as their
full-time colleagues.
6. Uniforms: It is as much in the Company's interest to
provide uniforms as the wearing of same helps exert some form
of authority over children who are misbehaving on the bus.
7. Travel Passes: As the workers concerned are part of the
Company and help generate a considerable amount of business
for the Company they should be entitled to the same benefits
as other personnel within Bus Eireann. In other companies
personnel receive concessions in relation to the products
which they manufacture.
8. General Arguments: The Company appear to be fearful of
Ministerial directives in relation to the School Transport
Scheme. This system is needed more than ever now in the
present economic climate and it is an acknowledged fact
throughout rural Ireland that but for the scheme many children
would not receive the education to which they are entitled.
9. The Minister for Labour stated last May at a seminar on
part-time employment that he had organised the seminar to
speed up efforts to reconcile divergent views on the matter of
protecting low paid part-time workers. He also acknowledged
the position of permanent part-time workers who could have
long years of service with one employer and yet have no
entitlements. While the workers here concerned have
entitlements they do not have parity of pay and conditions of
employment with their full-time colleagues.
10. The Company will argue that the claim is debarred under
the "no cost increasing" clause of the Programme for National
Recovery. However under Section 4 of the Private Sector
Agreement there is a provision whereby negotiations can be
entered into for increases on a productivity basis. Also
there is a provision under the Public Sector Agreement which
allows for claims to go through on a special basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Concession of the claims would cost a total of #1.5
million in the first year and #0.45 million annually. Bus
Eireann as the contractor in this case is in no position to
meet these costs. Our competitors for this business do not
have these costs and are on record as having stated that they
would operate the Scheme at a substantial reduction on
existing costs. The contractors who operate some 40% of the
Scheme have received no increase in their rates since 1985 and
the favourable conditions of employment of Bus Eireann's
part-time school bus drivers are not applied by private
operators or their staff.
2. The Scheme has been underfunded over the past 3 years by
#3.3 million and it is quite clear that increased funding will
not be forthcoming. The Department of Education is committed
to achieving substantial reductions in costs and this
commitment is clearly demonstrated by proposals for the pilot
projects and the fact that a major examination of the existing
costs of operating the scheme is now being undertaken by
consultants.
3. There has never been any relativity between the rate of
pay of part-time school bus drivers and road passenger drivers
and this has been upheld in a number of Labour Court
Recommendations (L.C.R. Nos. 8105, 7551, 4842, 3225 and 2594
refer) and it is the Company's view that there are major
differences in the job of a regular driver as against a
part-time school bus driver.
4. In relation to other part-time work groups, part-time
school bus drivers have good conditions of employment and
rates of pay. All part-time school bus drivers are fully
insured bringing them within the ambit of the Social Welfare
benefits and labour legislation.
5. Bus Eireann is in a serious financial situation and has an
accumulate deficit of over #9 million. In addition to this,
the projected results for 1990 indicate further losses of #5.8
million. It is clear that no cost increasing claims could be
met from within the Company's resources.
6. Bus Eireann has implemented in full the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery under which all cost
increasing claims are debarred. In addition the Agreement
between the Company and the Unions specifically debar cost
increasing claims. The need for co-operation in achieving
substantial reductions in costs was also agreed by the Unions
and the claims now before the Court are, therefore, debarred
under the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has examined the claims made by the Union on behalf
of its members employed on a part-time basis by Bus Eireann as
drivers of school buses.
The pay part of this claim has been before the Court in previous
years (1971, LCR 2594; 1973, LCR3225; 1978, LCR4842; 1982,
LCR7551; 1983, LCR8105), but on this occasion the Court has had to
take into account the agreement of November, 1988 between the
parties which is quite specific in regard to
"Agreement to co-operate in achieving the required reduction
in the cost of the School Transport Scheme;
the curtailment of additional cost burdens on the Company
and self-financing arrangements to cover any unavoidable
cost increases."
Therefore, having regard to the terms of the 1988 Agreement, the
Court is precluded from considering the cost increasing claims
during the period of the Agreement. Accordingly the Court does
not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
25th April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.