Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90665 Case Number: LCR13083 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF ASSOCIATION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for involvement with new Fares Bye Laws.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
raised by both parties in their written and oral submissions.
Having examined the evidence the Court is of the view that the
proposals agreed and implemented by the Company following Labour
Court conciliation in September, 1989 included payment for
implementation of the present Company proposals.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
The Court accepts that the claimants have genuine concern as to
certain aspects of the new operation and accordingly recommends
that following a period of 3 months operation both parties agree
to meet to discuss any problems which may arise with a view to
resolving such matters in an amicable manner.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90665 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13083
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF ASSOCIATION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for involvement with new Fares
Bye Laws.
BACKGROUND:
2. Part of the agreement reached in 1986 on the introduction of
one person operated (O.P.O.) double deck and large capacity single
deck buses provided for the transfer of onus for paying the
correct fare from bus staff to passengers. As a result a change
in the Bye-Laws under which the Company operates was necessary.
3. Over the years the Company has been updating the Bus Bye-Laws
and they were signed by the Minister for Tourism and Transport and
became law on the 3rd October, 1990. The Bye-Laws covered many
aspects of the Company's operation and in respect of the revenue
protection, provided for a #10 standard fare charge on request or
within a period of 21 days from the time the request is made. The
effect of this on the inspectors is that they will be expected to
collect #10 standard fares from defaulting passengers or to issue
notice of intention to prosecute in the event of the fare not
being paid within the specified period. At a meeting held on 6th
September, 1990 the Company advised the Unions of the impending
changes in the Bye-Laws and that a training course was being
arranged for all inspectors. In addition a publicity campaign
would be mounted advising the public of the legislation and of the
risk of fines being imposed arising from irregularities.
4. Subsequent meetings were held at which the Unions lodged a
claim on behalf of inspectors for monetary compensation for the
implementation of the proposed changes. The Unions also expressed
concern over the need to protect the inspectors from assault and
the consequence of such assaults. The Company rejected the claim
for monetary compensation on the basis that such changes were
covered by Clause 10 of a productivity agreement reached with the
inspectors in September, 1989 which reads as follows:
"Inspectors will fully co-operate with and participate in the
development and operation of new systems in the revenue
collection, rostering, bus control and data collection areas.
This would include the use of foot switches and head phones
for AVM duties and the use of computer equipment for various
systems".
On the question of assaults the Company gave a guarantee that no
supervisor would suffer loss of earnings in the event of assault
and that supervisors attending Court for cases as a result of
applying the new Bus Bye-Laws will be granted paid leave for the
day of the Court case.
5. At a general meeting of the inspectors held on 6th November,
1990 the following motion was passed:
"The Dublin Bus inspectors will not co-operate with the
implementation of the new Bye-Laws, as they involve extra
responsibility for the inspectors in connection with the
collection of fares and fines for no recompense".
The Company was also advised that the additional responsibilities
arising would not be acceptable because of the onerous nature of
the existing position and the absence of a suitable monetary
reward.
6. The Company, at a meeting held on the 12th November, 1990,
informed the Unions that there was no money available to pay
compensation and that the collection of excess fares had always
been an integral part of the inspectors duties and that the only
major change in duties would be the collecting of #10 fines from
defaulting passengers. The inspectors would be instructed to
commence distributing publicity material with effect from 14th
November, failing which they would be suspended. The Company's
position was not acceptable to the Unions and on 16th November the
conciliation service of the Labour Court invited the parties to
avail of its service. A conciliation conference was held on 17th
November, 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 20th November, 1990.
The court issued its recommendation by letter dated 21st
November, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The implementation of the new Bye-Laws will
fundamentally alter the inspectors role in that they, the
inspectors and not the operative grade staff will be
responsible for fare evasion and over-riding irregularities.
These changes leave the inspectors more open to the risk of
assault in addition to increasing their responsibilities.
2. The Company has argued that the proposed changes in the
Bye-Laws were covered by Clause 10 of the 1989 productivity
agreement. However, the extent of the changed input of the
inspectors, or indeed the level of the risk of assault now
apparent could not have been anticipated as contended by the
Company at the time the agreement was reached.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Clause 10 of the work practices is quite specific in so
far as it relates to co-operation and participation by the
inspectors in the operation of new systems in the revenue
protection area. The working party were well aware at the
time that the bye-laws were being revised and would be
implemented by the Company through the inspectors.
2. The Company has been reasonable with the Group in so far
as it has provided protection for inspectors who may be
assaulted during the course of their work. It has also
agreed to provide in the early stages of implementation of
the bye-laws extra coverage on overtime where it is
necessary. This overtime would then be reviewed in light of
experience. The bye-laws have always been part and parcel of
inspectors duties. The new laws are a modification of those
that were previously in operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
raised by both parties in their written and oral submissions.
Having examined the evidence the Court is of the view that the
proposals agreed and implemented by the Company following Labour
Court conciliation in September, 1989 included payment for
implementation of the present Company proposals.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
The Court accepts that the claimants have genuine concern as to
certain aspects of the new operation and accordingly recommends
that following a period of 3 months operation both parties agree
to meet to discuss any problems which may arise with a view to
resolving such matters in an amicable manner.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
18th April, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman