Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89801 Case Number: AD901 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC 187/89.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considered the submissions made by the parties and
has come to the conclusion that for as long as the Management
continue to operate the system of marking-in on spare boards that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89801 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC 187/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the Company's Capwell Depot in Cork
City. On the 23rd June, 1989, the Company wrote to the Union
enclosing copies of the proposed Summer operating boards for the
period 3rd July to 31st August. As there is a high element of
"schools" working on the relief boards during the school term
period of the year, the Company assimilated the public service
runs for the period 3rd July to 31st August. As a consequence
there were no specific rostered duties left on six relief boards
which were classified as spare boards (they contained no specific
rostered duties). The Company proposed that during the school
holiday period the crews on these spare boards would be rostered
for these boards and paid the full conditions applicable to the
school terms running on the boards. However, the Company also
proposed that where "marked-in crews" on these boards were off
duty due to illness or annual leave, they would not be replaced.
This was rejected by the Union and following no agreement at local
level, the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. (As the matter was not
investigated until September the Company did not implement that
part of its proposals and staff were replaced). Following an
investigation of the dispute on the 5th September, 1989 the Rights
Commissioner issued the following findings and recommendation on
the 26th September:
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:-
1. I believe both parties have endeavoured to deal with
this issue in a forthright and reasonable fashion.
2. The issue I must now look at is whether the advantage to
Management in having its requirement implemented
concerning the non-relief of such crews would be in
balance with, or outweighed by, the significance of any
departure on alleged custom and practice or
Union/Management agreement.
In the light of the above I have come to the view that the
position of the Trade Union on this matter should be upheld
and I recommend accordingly."
The Company rejected the Recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 29th November.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company cannot justify rostering replacement crews at
the cost of 1.50 days' pay for each day of replacement when
there were no specific duties to be performed, particularly as
there is already a panel of spare crews rostered daily in the
depot.
2. In other districts, such as Dundalk, when similar
assimilation of service runs is effected for the summer
months, the boards are completely cancelled and the crews work
spare and are brought on duty as required (L.C.R. 12519
refers).
3. In 1988 the Company's expenditure exceeded revenue by
#4.32 million and it is unreasonable and unjustifiable for the
Cork region to incur replacement costs where such replacements
are unnecessary and grossly uneconomical.
4. The Court is requested to acknowledge the Company's right
to amend duties and roster staff as required subject to
passenger demand, particularly where no loss of earnings
occur.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposal is totally unacceptable because all
sickness and annual leave, irrespective of whether it is on a
relief board or in regular duties, has to be catered for by
spare staff. In addition, as is the case in most other depots
around the country in the summer period, work is in abundance
and often there are insufficient staff numbers to cover for
the various situations that arise.
2. There is a principle involved in that where vacancies
arise, be they of a temporary nature, that they are covered in
the traditional fashion as has happened down through the
years. This is the major element which brought the Rights
Commissioner to find in the Union's favour. To allow relief
boards to be eliminated during periods of illness or annual
leave would be to make a concession to the Company which would
be unbearable in Cork or in any other provincial depot.
DECISION:
5. The Court considered the submissions made by the parties and
has come to the conclusion that for as long as the Management
continue to operate the system of marking-in on spare boards that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
9th January, 1990. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.