Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91151 Case Number: LCR13260 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the removal of four drivers from the tour panel.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Whilst acknowledging the difficulties under which the tour
business is presently operating the Court takes the view that
removal from the drivers panel on the basis simply of marginal
additional costs payable to Dublin Bus is not good industrial
relations practice. The Court therefore recommends that the
drivers in question be restored to the panel and the diminished
tour business be shared in the normal manner between all panel
drivers.
On the matter of compensation in respect of 1990 when the drivers
in question were excluded from tours work, since no loss was
incurred the Court does not recommend payment as claimed by the
Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13260
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946, SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the removal of four drivers from the tour
panel.
BACKGROUND:
2. For many years Bus Eireann has provided, under contract, the
staffing requirements for the operation of the coach tours of
C.I.E. Tours International. The tours panel includes drivers from
Bus Eireann and Bus Atha Cliath. The four drivers concerned are
regular members of the staff of Bus Atha Cliath. Two have been on
the panel since 1970 and 1979 respectively and the other two are
on the substitute panel and will only be used in the event of no
driver being available to operate a tour. In 1990 the Company
stated that it intended to cease using the Bus Atha Cliath drivers
on the tour panel in an effort to reduce expenditure. Management
claimed that a saving of #9,000 p.a. could be achieved by using
Bus Eireann drivers only. The Union has rejected the Company's
proposal claiming that Management is in breach of an agreement in
force since 1970. The Union claims that the workers concerned
should be restored to the panel forthwith and suitable
compensation should be paid to them for the loss of their position
in the 1990 tour season. Management has rejected the claim. The
issue could not be resolved at local level discussions and was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
23rd July, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 18th
September, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 26th February, 1991. A Court hearing was held on the 10th
April, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early, 1990, following a meeting with regard to the
prospective tour for 1990, the Company stated verbally that
they did not intend to use any tour panel members from Bus
Atha Cliath. This is in direct contrast to the position
obtaining for many years because the tour panel operated on
its own seniority basis of last on first off. Therefore two
of the workers concerned were senior men on the tour panel and
should not have been removed from same. This agreement
regarding removal from a tour panel and how it should be
operated was reached in 1970 by the then tours manager, when
the tour panel, because of overstaffing had to be reduced and
it was agreed that a reduction would be effected on a last on
first off basis. In the event of vacancies occurring again
the drivers would go back on the panel in the same fashion
that they came off it.
2. Notwithstanding the fact that this agreement has been in
force for many years the Company unilaterally removed the
workers concerned from the tours panel without the agreement
of this Union. If the Company had no other option but to
reduce the tour panel the most logical step was to remove the
most junior driver and leave him off the panel until such time
as a vacancy was available for him. Alternatively the Company
could leave all the drivers on the panel and share the work
out equally which is normally done in any case.
3. The Company's argument that they have to pay a premium to
Bus Atha Cliath for the release of the workers concerned to
operate on the tour panel does not stand. The Company is
paying the same premium every day in every week to staff who
operate in the Broadstone Depot to operate normal services.
This has been a feature for many years, long before the three
companies were formed.
4. The Company took a decision to remove the drivers from the
tour panel without consultation with the Union. There is no
point in having agreements if they are not honoured by both
sides. The Union is claiming the restoration of the four
drivers to the panel and suitable compensation for their loss
in the 1990 season.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had numerous meetings with the Unions on the
question of ceasing to use the Bus Atha Cliath drivers on the
tour panel. At a local committee meeting held in February at
the Broadstone depot the Company advised the Unions that some
saving could be achieved by ceasing to use the Bus Atha Cliath
drivers. No disagreement was expressed by either S.I.P.T.U.
or N.B.R.W.U. representatives to this plan and arrangements
were made to remove the names of the Bus Atha Cliath drivers
from the panel.
2. While the drivers concerned work with Bus Eireann its
sister Company, Bus Atha Cliath charges a penalty payment of
#14.05 per day, which is calculated to reimburse them for
their drivers' absence from duty. In 1988 this cost was
#2,000 approximately and on a typical seven day tour added
#98 to the overall cost of the tour.
3. C.I.E. Tours International has been in serious financial
difficulties for some years now (details of
revenue/expenditure for the years 1985-1989 supplied to the
Court). Every opportunity has to be pursued to streamline the
tours market strategy and operational procedures. The end
result of these cost saving measures was to endeavour to
regain the business lost to competitors over the last number
of years where the level of tour days operated had dropped
alarmingly.
4. In 1985 when there were 29 drivers on the tour panel each
driver averaged 84.50 tour days. In 1990 - even with the
absence of the Bus Atha Cliath drivers from the panel - the
remaining 17 drivers only averaged 64.50 touring days each.
While it was regrettable that Bus Atha Cliath drivers lost
their positions on the panel, it was equally obvious that all
sections of the Company would need to contribute to the
survival package.
5. An examination of the earnings of the four drivers
concerned in this claim shows that the earning level while not
on tour in respect of each of the four men has increased
(details supplied to the Court). A further factor in the area
of expenditure was the wage bill to Bus Eireann for each of
the four drivers while working for C.I.E. Tours International.
In 1989 it amounted to:-
Driver A 44 Days = #2316
Driver B 69 Days = #3280
Driver C 14 Days = #739
Driver D 15 Days = #741
This amounted to a total of #7,076 added to #2,000 penalty
payment to Bus Atha Cliath in 1989 resulting in a gross total
of #9,076. By eliminating the Bus Atha Cliath drivers from
the panel this type of saving could be achieved and therefore
the jobs of the Bus Eireann Tour Panel drivers could be
consolidated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Whilst acknowledging the difficulties under which the tour
business is presently operating the Court takes the view that
removal from the drivers panel on the basis simply of marginal
additional costs payable to Dublin Bus is not good industrial
relations practice. The Court therefore recommends that the
drivers in question be restored to the panel and the diminished
tour business be shared in the normal manner between all panel
drivers.
On the matter of compensation in respect of 1990 when the drivers
in question were excluded from tours work, since no loss was
incurred the Court does not recommend payment as claimed by the
Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
19th April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.