Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91202 Case Number: LCR13346 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claims by the Unions on behalf of workers involved in provincial bus services for: (1) An increase from 20% to 33 1/3% in the One Person Operation (O.P.O.) Bonus. (2) Inclusion of average overtime worked by spare drivers for annual leave payments. (3) Inclusion of 20% O.P.O. allowance for pension purposes. (4) Income Continuance Plan (I.C.P.).
Recommendation:
19. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows on the four claims in dispute:-
(1) Increase in O.P.O Allowance.
The Court accepts that there have been some changes in the
level of responsibility incurred by the drivers since the
allowance of 20% was introduced. These changes however do
not justify granting an allowance of 33 1/3% as claimed. The
Court considers than an increase of 4% would be fair in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the 20%
allowance be raised to 24%.
(2) Average Pay for Spare Drivers.
The Court recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
(3) Inclusion of O.P.O. allowance for Pension Purposes.
The Court recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
(4) Income Continuance Plan.
The Court recommends that the Company agree to extend the
terms of this plan to those not covered at present on the
same basis.
The Court further recommends that the above recommendations be
implemented as and from the expiration of the Programme for
National Recovery.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91202 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13346
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Unions on behalf of workers involved in
provincial bus services for:
(1) An increase from 20% to 33 1/3% in the One Person
Operation (O.P.O.) Bonus.
(2) Inclusion of average overtime worked by spare drivers
for annual leave payments.
(3) Inclusion of 20% O.P.O. allowance for pension purposes.
(4) Income Continuance Plan (I.C.P.).
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. These claims were discussed at local level negotiations but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 5th July, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 18th September, 1990 but
no agreement was reached. The issues were referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 26th February,
1991. A Court hearing was held on the 19th June, 1991.
Claim I: Increase in the 20% One Person Operation (O.P.O.) Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
3. The workers concerned operate the provincial O.P.O. services.
Since O.P.O. was introduced in the early 1960's a 20% O.P.O. bonus
has been paid to them. The Unions are claiming an increase in the
allowance to 33 1/3% on the grounds that there has been a
significant increase in the workload of the workers concerned over
the years. The Unions also state that a 33 1/3% bonus is
presently paid to the workers on O.P.O. in Dublin Bus. Management
has rejected the claim on the grounds that there has been no
change in the duties and responsibilities of the workers
concerned.
SIPTU'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 20% O.P.O. bonus was agreed in 1962. At that time
seating capacity in buses was 20 passengers. Now the seating
capacity is at least 50. Operators have to be familiar with
- some 29 different types of ticket (Details supplied to the
Court). The pattern of traffic has changed dramatically over
the years with a huge volume of traffic now on Irish roads.
The development of new services and the setting up of the
expressway network and turnaround services has speeded up
running times between destinations. The Labour Court in
L.C.R. 9901 recognised the true value of bus drivers' work by
awarding them 33 1/3% for driving O.P.O. buses. All of this
has increased pressure on drivers. The workers concerned
have, by the nature of their work, to work side by side with
their fellow employees who enjoy the 33 1/3% allowance and
are also entitled to it. It is a well-known fact that the
Company cannot get regular permanent staff to fill "out
based" vacancies because of the anomaly which now exists.
NBRU's ARGUMENTS:
5. The workers concerned have felt very aggrieved at the
discrepancy which presently exists in the O.P.O. allowance.
In the city the premium for a double deck or a single deck
large capacity bus is 33 1/3%, while larger single deck
provincial bases qualify for only 20%. While the city single
deck seating is 35, the provincial bus seating capacity is at
least 55. The level of work on ticket transactions is higher
on provincial services because of the varied types of tickets
available. Drivers have to look after increasing amounts of
cash and passengers. The Union is convinced, from
information received from drivers, that provincial bus work
is as difficult as city work. The Union asks the Court to
recommend that the same bonus payment be made to provincial
drivers as that paid to their city counterparts and so
eliminate an anomaly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. During the course of negotiations on the O.P.O. of
double deck and large capacity single deck buses on city
services, the Unions laid great emphasis on the substantial
additional responsibility for drivers on these buses as
against the normal provincial single deck working. This
factor was, to a very large extent, the justification for the
33 1/3% city O.P.O. bonus recommended by the Court. The 20%
bonus is applicable to long distance provincial services and
collection of fares has been part of duties since O.P.O. was
introduced. This rate has, therefore, been accepted and
established down the years. There has been no major change
in the drivers' responsibilities which would warrant an
increase.
2. It is true that traffic levels on roads have increased
since 1963, but this does not change in any way the basic
duties of a bus driver, particularly in so far as provincial
inter-city/town services are concerned. It must also be
stated that there has been a substantial improvement in the
country's road conditions which has eased congestion levels
on roads. As regards the range of ticket types carried and
issued by drivers, it is no greater now than it was in 1963.
(Details supplied to the Court).
3. To increase the 20% O.P.O. bonus for the drivers
concerned to 33 1/3% would cost the Company an estimated
additional #968,000 p.a.
Claim 2. Inclusion of average overtime worked by spare drivers
for annual leave payments.
BACKGROUND:
7. Bus drivers who are permanently operating a provincial "board"
have all bonus payments including overtime taken into account for
the purpose of holiday pay. The workers concerned, who are spare
drivers, provide cover when regular drivers are on annual leave,
sick leave, etc. Because they are not "marked-in" drivers, their
overtime payments are not included in the calculation of their
annual leave entitlements. The Unions' claim is that all the
overtime worked by spare drivers should be taken into account in
the calculation of annual leave. Management has rejected the
claim.
SIPTU's ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. A number of years ago, the Court recommended that
marked-in drivers in Bus Eireann should receive the average
of their rostered overtime for the 13 working weeks prior to
annual leave in their holiday pay (LCR7135 refers). This
discriminates against spare drivers, as they are expected to
replace marked-in drivers. The workers concerned are unlike
their counterparts in Dublin Bus who start as spare drivers
and move on eventually to become marked-in on routes. In the
case of spare drivers at Broadstone Depot, for example, these
positions are filled by the most senior applicants from the
ranks of the spare drivers.
2. The position of average overtime in Dublin Bus was
conceded by an internal O.P.O. Tribunal in Decision No. A/600
of 24th January, 1990. The recommendation applies equally to
marked in and spare staff and there is no difference between
the two when it comes to calculating holiday pay.
NBRU's ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. It is not possible for all drivers to get on to
permanent boards and it is vital that there are spare staff
available. The workers concerned operate a great number of
regular, though not boarded, services and carry out a wide
range of duties which, without the services of spare drivers,
would be a failure. There is a level of guaranteed overtime
available to the extent that spare drivers are asked to
undertake excessive hours of duty. Their circumstances
change dramatically when they go on annual leave. They
suffer a large reduction in wages because overtime or
spreadover is not taken into account in the calculation of
holiday pay. This is unfair to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. LCR7135 recommended that drivers who permanently operated
boards which involved the working of regular overtime should
have the payment of such overtime included in the calculation
of annual leave payments. In respect of spare staff annual
leave, payment includes bonus earnings other than overtime
and Sunday duty (except where it is one of a driver's normal
weekly terms of duty). The bonus earnings taken into account
are shift allowance, O.P.O. bonus, large car allowance,
bonus for Public Holidays worked, Saturday afternoon bonus,
unsocial hours payment. This method of annual leave payment
fully conforms with the provisions contained in the Holidays
(Employees) Act, 1973.
2. The inclusion of overtime in annual leave payments as
recommended by the Court was specifically based on the fact
that marked-in drivers permanently operated boards with an
overtime content. This criterion does not apply in respect
of overtime working performed by spare staff.
3. The salient factor with regard to overtime worked by
spare staff is that it is of a casual/fortuitous nature and
even in the event of relief coverage does not constitute a
permanent situation in line with the terms of LCR7135.
4. The estimated additional annual cost of including such
overtime in holiday pay for spare staff is #55,400.
Claim 3. Inclusion of O.P.O. for pension purposes.
BACKGROUND:
11. There are two types of O.P.O. The 20% bonus is paid to
workers who operate provincial routes and ranks for overtime
purposes only. The 33 1/3% O.P.O. bonus which applies to drivers
who operate O.P.O. double-deck and large capacity single-deck
buses on provincial and city bus routes and is taken into account
for pension purposes. The Unions are claiming that the 20% O.P.O.
bonus should also be included for pension purposes. Management
has rejected the claim on the grounds that this matter was
investigated by the Court in recent times (LCR12247 refers) and
the Court did not recommend concession of the claim. Management
states that nothing has changed in relation to this matter in the
past year which would now justify concession of the claim.
SIPTU's ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The non-inclusion of the 20% O.P.O. bonus for pension
purposes is one of the most serious anomalies now existing in
Bus Eireann. The Court in LCR9901 and LCR11151 recommended
that the increase of 33 1/3% would rank for "annual leave,
illness benefit payments and for pension purposes".
2. The pension scheme is based on the rate at the date of
retirement and is not service-related. For this reason the
present method of payment of contributions for operators in
receipt of the 20% O.P.O. bonus shows in real terms the
anomaly as it now exists.
3. Prior to 1986 and the introduction of the 33 1/3% O.P.O.
bonus the 20% bonus was one of the few opportunities that bus
workers had to achieve a liveable wage and consequently
senior members of staff applied for duties which carried this
bonus. Advancement within the work area was along the
following lines:-
(a) start as driver on two-person duty
(b) depending on seniority, advance to O.P.O. duty. In
certain cases, this would mean moving to provincial
services.
The majority of 20% O.P.O. duties are outbased provincial
duties with little or no opportunity for enhanced earnings.
4. The anomalous situation currently in Bus Eireann is
compounded by the fact that on the introduction of large
capacity O.P.O. duties, those formerly held by junior drivers
on two-person operation continue to be held by them following
conversion. Consequently junior staff members hold most, if
not all, of the 33 1/3% O.P.O. duties and senior workers have
to remain on the 20% O.P.O. duties.
5. The pension scheme is based on gradations (details
supplied to the Court). The difference in pension benefit
would be #6 per week, a sizable amount for a worker retiring
and whose opportunity for enhanced earnings also ends on
retirement.
NBRU's ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The Company's wages grade pension scheme is a very poor
one. Despite the fact that the Court on two separate
occasions has recommended Public Service type schemes, the
Company still operates a scheme which is not service related.
2. The present pension ranges from #29.50 to #40.50 and the
workers concerned are on the lower rate. It is totally
unjust that the 20% O.P.O. bonus is not included for pension
purposes for workers who can retire on a pension of #29.50
per week.
3. The Court recently ruled that this issue was precluded
under the terms of the P.N.R. However, at no stage did the
Court say that the claim was not justified. As the P.N.R. is
coming to an end, it is only fitting that this important
issue be addressed once again. The Company should have
conceded this claim long ago because the 20% O.P.O. bonus is
basically part of weekly pay and the concession of the claim
by the Company would go a long way towards bridging the gap
presently existing between members of the same pension
scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. All C.I.E. pension schemes are governed by the 1950
Transport Act and any changes must be sanctioned by the
Minister and implemented by means of a Statutory Instrument.
2. The workers concerned are members of the C.I.E. wages
grade pension scheme and pensions payable from this scheme
are related to a worker's basic pay at date of retirement.
This pension is additional to the Social Welfare retirement
pension.
3. The pension scheme is a funded scheme, with
contribution paid by workers and Bus Eireann. In 1990 the
contributions cost for the Company amounted to #283,649.
Pensions payments are revised annually in line with wage
movements. The cost to the Company of implementing these
increases is #305,000 per annum and this amount has to be met
in full from current revenues and not from the resources of
the pension fund.
4. To include the O.P.O. allowance would also impact on the
funds of the pension scheme. This scheme is not service-
related; a worker retiring at age 65 gets the same pension
whether he has 20, 30 or 40 years' service. This means that
if a worker qualifies for the O.P.O. allowance in, say, his
last year of service, he would receive an enhanced pension
for life, although he had paid the higher contribution
required only for a few months.
5. Concession of this claim would add a further liability
of #600,000 to the already sizable pensions bill for the
Company. The Company cannot seek a fare increase in order to
meet these additional costs nor does it have the funds
available from which to meet them.
6. The Company has entered into a Trust Deed with Irish
Life whereby workers who are members of any of the C.I.E.
pension schemes may enhance their pensions by means of
additional voluntary contributions. This affords an
opportunity for the workers concerned to enhance their
eventual pension by using all or a portion of their 20%
O.P.O. allowance to that end.
7. The Court has already investigated two similar type
claims for the reckoning of O.P.O. allowances for pension
purposes. In both cases the Court did not recommend in
favour of the claims (LCR's 12247, 13292 refer).
8. Under the settlement terms for the payment of the 27th
Wage Round increases (P.N.R.), which was implemented for the
grades concerned in these claims with effect from 1st
October, 1988, it was agreed between the parties that there
would be an embargo on all cost-increasing claims.
Claim 4. Income Continuance Plan (I.C.P).
BACKGROUND:
15. As part of the negotiations on the introduction of O.P.O. in
Dublin Bus, agreement was reached between the parties for the
introduction of an I.C.P. LCR9901 recommended that the plan
should be funded on a 50/50 basis. In 1987, LCR11151 which dealt
with the introduction of O.P.O. in the provincial city services
recommended that the Company afford a subsidy of 50% of the
contribution rate in respect of all workers in receipt of the 33
1/3% O.P.O. allowance in the seniority areas of Cork, Limerick,
Galway and Waterford. This subsidy level was the same as
recommended in LCR9901. However, because of the nature of working
in the four provincial cities involved, it was subsequently agreed
at the Labour Court in 1987 that a reduced subsidy based on the
cost factor in LCR11151 but applicable to all drivers and
conductors in the four seniority areas would be afforded. The
subsidy was set at #2.09, to be adjusted in line with any
percentage change in the premium. The current contribution rate
by members is #3.11. The workers concerned are excluded from the
scheme and the Unions are claiming that it should be extended to
afford them cover and also that the Company should increase the
subsidy to a 50% contribution rate. Management has rejected the
claim.
SIPTU's ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. In 1987 an industrial dispute took place on the
extension of O.P.O.; this lasted for more than three weeks
and part of the settlement was an amendment to LCR11151 which
stated:
"The Company will pay a contribution of #2.09 to the
Income Continuance Plan and this will be in line with
the percentage change in the premium". "The Company
contributions to the I.C.P. will be paid in respect of
all drivers and conductors in the four seniority areas".
2. Had the full terms of LCR9901 been implemented and based
on the 50/50 divide, the Company contribution would have
produced a figure of #2.68 per worker per week. The Union
recognised that there was a major difference between Dublin
City services and the provincial areas in so far as the
Provincial operation can be a mixed operation, a combination
of both city and rural working. For this reason the Union
sought that the amount available and divided equally would
then produce an amended figure of #2.09.
3. The total establishment for Bus Eireann driver/conductor
in 1987 was 1016. The current staff level is 821. This is a
reduction of 195 workers. If it was to be assumed that 150
of these workers were former members of the plan and based on
the current contribution of #3.11 per member per week, this
would then show a saving to the Company of #24,258.
4. The Union's claim is to extend, to workers not covered
the benefits of such a plan and also restore to the present
scheme members some increase to reduce the differential.
NBRU's ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. When the O.P.O. agreement was being negotiated for the
provinces, the Company accepted that part payment would be
made into the I.C.P. on behalf of workers in the seniority
areas of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. While that
proposal was accepted at the time, it was obvious that it
would give rise to difficulties in the future.
2. Out of a total of approximately 800 workers, less than
200 were excluded from the scheme. In order to provide for
the difficulties arising from ill-health, these workers have
to pay the full premium. There is discrimination against
these workers and they should be included in the I.C.P. along
with their fellow workers.
3. The very nature of Bus work is hard on the health of
workers and consequently there is a strong possibility of
illness. The Company has an obligation to the workers
concerned to protect them against long terms illness and it
should not be left solely to the individuals to pay the full
premium.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
18. 1. The subsidy which the Company agreed to pay in respect
of all drivers and conductors in the four seniority areas was
set at #2.09 and was to be adjusted in line with any
percentage change in the premium. It must be emphasised that
this payment was part of an agreement covering a major
productivity deal and there is no sound basis for extending
payment of the subsidy to staff not involved in O.P.O. city
services.
2. SIPTU has claimed that as costs of the subsidy to the
Company had decreased due to a much-reduced staffing level,
it should be extended to other provincial operatives and be
raised to 50% contribution rate. Since September, 1987 there
has been a 53.3% increase in the I.C.P. premium. The actual
cost to the Company of this subsidy over the past three years
was:-
1988 - 39,938
1989 - 43,506
1990 _ 57,705
To extend payment of this subsidy now as claimed would cost
an additional #47,000 p.a.
RECOMMENDATION:
19. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows on the four claims in dispute:-
(1) Increase in O.P.O Allowance.
The Court accepts that there have been some changes in the
level of responsibility incurred by the drivers since the
allowance of 20% was introduced. These changes however do
not justify granting an allowance of 33 1/3% as claimed. The
Court considers than an increase of 4% would be fair in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the 20%
allowance be raised to 24%.
(2) Average Pay for Spare Drivers.
The Court recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
(3) Inclusion of O.P.O. allowance for Pension Purposes.
The Court recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
(4) Income Continuance Plan.
The Court recommends that the Company agree to extend the
terms of this plan to those not covered at present on the
same basis.
The Court further recommends that the above recommendations be
implemented as and from the expiration of the Programme for
National Recovery.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
15th July, 1991
T.O'D / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman