Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90647 Case Number: LCR13116 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of a retired bus driver for payment of a statutory redundancy lump sum payment.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that there are no grounds on which it could
recommend concession of the Union's claim which it accordingly
rejects.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90647 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13116
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a retired bus driver for payment of a
statutory redundancy lump sum payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker here concerned was employed as a bus driver at
Ringsend Garage with C.I.E. and Dublin Bus for 38 years upto his
retirement on 17th June, 1987. From January, 1986, as a result of
L.C.R. 9901, voluntary severance was available to staff on
conversion of their routes to one person operation (O.P.O.).
3. The worker here concerned who was marked-in on Route 50
decided that as he was near to retirement he would like to avail
of the severance package. Accordingly he applied for and was
marked-in on Route 55 where it was rumoured that it was about to
be converted to O.P.O. Having obtained the Route he was duly
issued with Notice of Redundancy form R.P.I. on 3rd December, 1986
with his employment due to terminate on 28th January, 1987.
4. The worker was subsequently informed by the Company that the
conversion of the Route was being deferred as all drivers had not
agreed to the conversion. The worker retired in June, 1987 and
the Route was not converted until September, 1988. The worker
subsequently claimed the payment of a statutory redundancy lump
sum on the basis that he had a reasonable expectation of being
made redundant and through no fault of his own this did not
happen. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that a
redundancy situation did not exist in this case and that the
driver retired in the normal manner.
5. The claim was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 24th January, 1990. A conciliation conference was
held on 14th May, 1990. 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 27th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker here concerned was unfairly treated. He had
been given a commitment by the Company by the issuing of form
R.P.I. and the signing of a final binding option (Because of
problems with route conversion a system was agreed whereby all
staff on a route ready for conversion would sign a final
binding option form to ensure there would be no dispute later
on the declared option of any staff). On this basis he made
arrangements for his retirement namely a visit to his daughter
in America which he had to subsequently cancel.
2. The Company on other occasions where staff argued that
they had not allowed a Route convert went ahead and forcibly
converted the Routes 44, 45A, 46A and 58, on the basis that
commitments given to staff had to be honoured.
3. It became well known at the time that conversion of the
Route had been held up by one driver who had always declared
his intention to do so and Management had deliberately issued
R.P.I.s in order to get the rest of the staff to put pressure
on this individual to change. As this failed the Company
should be made pay for the hardship and upset caused to the
worker here concerned. The Court is asked to recommend
payment of a statutory lump sum to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. No redundancy situation existed on the 55 route until it
became O.P.O. on the 6th September, 1988 - the worker had
retired on 17th June, 1987 at 65 years of age and his vacancy
had to be filled on his retirement.
2. Acting on the same type of information and expectation as
the worker the Company issued R.P.1. forms for those on the
route whose option was for Voluntary Severance. It is
accepted that the issuing was premature but the Company
advised him of the withdrawal of the proposed Notice of
Redundancy.
3. Payment of the redundancy in the circumstances would
create an indefensible precedent. A substantial number of
drivers and conductors retired prior to the introduction of
O.P.O. on their routes and did not qualify for the redundancy
payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that there are no grounds on which it could
recommend concession of the Union's claim which it accordingly
rejects.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
11th December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.