Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90428 Case Number: AD9046 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 327/90 concerning the loss of one bodymaker's position at Tralee garage.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no ground on which it could base a recommendation to restore
the establishment of bodymakers at Tralee garage from 2 to 3 as
claimed by the Union.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90428 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4690
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 327/90 concerning the loss of one
bodymaker's position at Tralee garage.
BACKGROUND:
2. Before 1988 there was a compliment of three bodymakers in the
Company's Tralee garage. One of the bodymakers was granted a
transfer in early 1988 and the Company decided that an
establishment of two bodymakers, with some assistance from a final
year apprentice, would be the staffing level. When the apprentice
finished his time in late 1988 he was retained as a temporary
bodymaker on a month to month basis. One of the two appointed
bodymakers resigned in 1989 and the temporary bodymaker was
appointed to the vacant full-time position. The Union claims that
the establishment of three bodymakers should be restored as the
present establishment of two bodymakers is unable to cope with the
level of work at the garage and a backlog of repairs has occurred.
The Company claims that the present establishment of two
bodymakers is adequate and the employment of an extra bodymaker
would constitute unnecessary expenditure. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner who investigated the dispute on 1st May, 1990 and
issued the following recommendation on 23rd May, 1990:-
"In the circumstances that no man was forced into redundancy
or redeployment and no loss of earnings or worsening of
conditions took place for those remaining I must recommend
that the claim fails.
I am unable to recommend compensation for loss of
establishment, as claimed by the Union as such payments in
the past were related to circumstances where a general
re-organisation had taken place involving loss of earnings."
The Union, on 12th June, 1990, appealed this recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 10th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is sufficient work available for three bodymakers in
the Tralee garage. At present it is impossible for the two
bodymakers to catch up on the backlog which has occurred since
the loss of the third bodymaker.
2. The vast majority of the bodymakers' workload consists of
the repair and maintenance of the school bus fleet (details to
the Court). The bodymakers are working flat out in order to
carry out running repairs to keep the buses at a basic level
of mobility. The reduction in staff has resulted in the
current unsafe and poor condition of buses passing through the
garage.
3. Over the past fourteen months the Company has filled
vacancies that have occurred in other grades. The Company's
policy in respect of the manning levels for bodymakers where
the establishment of three bodymakers plus an apprentice has
been reduced to two is deplorable. This is in stark contrast
to its policy on manning levels for other grades, where they
have filled vacancies which have occurred in these grades
(details supplied to Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The ageing road passenger and school transport bus fleets
are being replaced and the level of bodywork in the Tralee
garage has decreased considerably over the years. The Company
is satisfied that the present establishment of two bodymakers
is adequate.
2. The staff in the garage are not suffering any loss of
earnings or deterioration in their conditions of employment
due to the present staffing level. There have been no
redundancies or redeployment involved.
3. The Company is required to operate under severe financial
restraints and staffing costs must be closely monitored and
contained on an on-going basis. It is the prerogative of
management to decide on staffing levels and the employment of
a third bodymaker is not required and would constitute
unnecessary expenditure.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no ground on which it could base a recommendation to restore
the establishment of bodymakers at Tralee garage from 2 to 3 as
claimed by the Union.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
29th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.