Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91413 Case Number: LCR13413 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS;C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Unions concerning the introduction of the 39 hour week and subsequently that the new hourly rate be set at 1/39th of the weekly rate with holiday and overtime rates adjusted accordingly.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the issues arising from the claim
for the introduction of 39 hour week in this case. In particular
it has considered the effect of the easement of schedules provided
for on the introduction of O.P.O. and is of the opinion that bus
crews currently working an average week of 38 hours 1 minute (or
38 hours 10 minutes) do not qualify for a reduction in working
hours under the relevant terms of the P.N.R. except to the extent
that the divisor for the purpose of calculating overtime etc.
should be amended from 1/40th to 1/39th.
As in other recommendations in respect of related companies the
Court does not consider the Company's proposals as regards the
overtime payment or the divisor to be within the spirit of the
agreement on the reduction in hours and does not therefore
recommend that they be attached as a condition to the proposed
change.
The Court further recommends that the reduced working week be
introduced in Dublin Bus with effect from 1st May, 1991.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91413 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13413
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
AND
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
(C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP)
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions concerning the introduction of the 39
hour week and subsequently that the new hourly rate be set at
1/39th of the weekly rate with holiday and overtime rates adjusted
accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1989, the Union Group wrote to the Company seeking a
meeting regarding the reduction of hours in the working week as
provided for under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
The Company declined to negotiate on the matter at that time. The
matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court in May, 1990, however, the Company declined to be party to a
conciliation conference as it believed that it was premature to
refer the matter to the Court as it was the Company's intention to
abide by the terms of the P.N.R. Following a ballot for
industrial action, the Unions informed the Company that they
intended to implement action decided on and from 10th December,
1990. This action was postponed to allow talks between the
parties to take place. Local talks failed to resolve the matter
and it was again referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Court. A series of conciliation conferences were held between
January and May, 1991. Agreement could not be reached and the
matter was referred to the Court on 8th August, 1991, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 27th August, 1991.
I.C.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' claim that the implementation of the
reduction in hours of the working week should be with effect
from 1st September, 1990. This is based on the fact that the
Company implemented the P.N.R. on the basis of the Public
Sector Agreement. This agreement provided that:-
(i) where agreement had been reached regarding the
conditions of implementation of the one hour reduction,
the operative date was 1st July, 1990.
(ii) where no agreement could be reached with regard to the
terms of implementation of the 39 hour week the
operative date was 1st September, 1990, when the final
arrangements were agreed.
(The Court's attention was drawn to Labour Court
Recommendation No. 13188).
2. The Unions' claim is standard for all the C.I.E. Group
of Companies and whilst agreement has not been reached in all
areas with this Company, it is fair to say that only one
major problem exists. That is the situation regarding bus
drivers and conductors. The Company contends that as these
grades work an average 38 hours 10 minutes over 5 days, no
reduction in the working week will be given to them. This is
totally unacceptable. During negotiations on One Person
Operation (O.P.O.), the Unions claimed a shorter working
week. This was rejected by the Company who offered to ease
schedules within the context of a 40 hour week. The
Company's position was upheld by the Court in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9901 which was one of the reasons that the
Recommendation was rejected by the Unions. This rejection
resulted in a bitter dispute which was settled by Labour
Court Proposals on 9th January, 1986. The Court still
insisted on a 40 hour week but conceded "easment of
schedules" as part of the major productivity agreement. This
proves that the current easment of schedules is a part of the
payment for O.P.O. and should not be taken into account in
the entitlement to a reduction in working hours. If it were,
it would have serious implications for future pay
negotiations as any similar provision in a future agreement
would not be of benefit to drivers and conductors due to the
38 hour 10 minute average.
3. The position regarding the 40 hour week is further
confirmed by the contract of employment currently being
issued by the Company to Two Person Operation Staff. This
contract states that the standard working week will be a 5
day, 40 hour week.
4. The Unions request the Court to recommend the reduction
in working hours be implemented from 1st September, 1990,
that the new hourly rate be calculated at 1/39th of the
weekly rate and that overtime and holiday entitlements be
adjusted accordingly and that the Court recognise that
"easement of schedules" as part of the O.P.O. productivity
deal should not interfere with the benefits of a one hour
reduction to all Company staff currently on a 40 hour week
being conceded to drivers and conductors.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The N.B.R.U. has never been a party to negotiating any
of the National Agreements. Members have retained the right
to either accept or reject the terms contained in such
agreements. The members accepted the terms of the P.N.R. and
having being paid the monetary terms, they expect that the
provision for a one hour reduction in the working week should
be conceded.
2. The Company has said it intends honouring its obligation
to reduce working hours but that drivers and conductors would
not be involved in that reduction because they are, on
average, working 38 hours 10 minutes per week. This average
of 38 hours 10 minutes came about due to an easement in
schedules associated with the O.P.O. Productivity Agreement.
3. The Court itself, in its settlement proposals to a
dispute following the issuing of Labour Court Recommendation
No. 9901, proposed that the standard working week remain at
40 hours. In the amendments to the National Agreement, the
working week is set down as 40 hours.
4. Having suceeded in introducing a productivity deal that
almost halved the workforce, the Company now want to recoup
some of the benefits contained in the O.P.O. package. The
so-called easement of schedules was an important factor in
the staffs' acceptance of the O.P.O. deal. Any reduction in
working time claimed and conceded for productivity should not
debar the workers from any subsequent national trend in
shorter working hours.
4.5 The Company's decision to debar certain grades provides
a platform for discontent among those workers, which will in
turn lead to substandard performances and a disimprovement in
industrial relations at a time when there is considerable
harmony after many years of industrial unrest. The reduction
of the working week should be conceded for drivers and
conductors so as to preserve the harmony that exists and
ensure that there is no erosion of conditions negotiated
through productivity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has advised the Unions that the reduction in
working hours will be applied to all staff whose normal
working week is at or above 40 hours per week. The reduction
in hours will be applied from 1st October, 1991.
2. The Framework Agreement on Hours of Work states that
"employees whose normal working week is at or above 40 hours
and only such employees shall benefit from it". Clearly bus
crews who only work 38 hours 1 minute are not entitled to any
reduction in working hours. The Court has already recognised
that claims for a one hour reduction, where net standard
working hours are less than 40 hours per week, are outside
the terms of the P.N.R. There is no justification in
conceding this claim for bus crews. Concession would cost
the Company £0.6m annually.
3. The Framework Agreement also states that while
negotiating the reduction in working hours, the parties
should have regard for the costs involved, the implications
for competitiveness and the effect on the public finances.
Given the serious financial position of the Company, it
cannot add further to its costs by increasing the overtime
rates which are already very high by applying a divisor of
1/39th. Concession of the Unions' claim will only worsen the
Company's already critical financial position with
accumulated losses of £29m at the end of 1990. Any further
losses would put the future of the Company in jeopardy and
must result in substantial job losses.
4. The cost of implementing the reduction in working hours
is £200,000 annually. The Company cannot add further to that
substantial increase in costs by applying the divisor of
1/39th for calculating overtime. The nature of the work
results in regular overtime working at high premium rates.
Concession of this claim would cost approximately £120,000
annually.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the issues arising from the claim
for the introduction of 39 hour week in this case. In particular
it has considered the effect of the easement of schedules provided
for on the introduction of O.P.O. and is of the opinion that bus
crews currently working an average week of 38 hours 1 minute (or
38 hours 10 minutes) do not qualify for a reduction in working
hours under the relevant terms of the P.N.R. except to the extent
that the divisor for the purpose of calculating overtime etc.
should be amended from 1/40th to 1/39th.
As in other recommendations in respect of related companies the
Court does not consider the Company's proposals as regards the
overtime payment or the divisor to be within the spirit of the
agreement on the reduction in hours and does not therefore
recommend that they be attached as a condition to the proposed
change.
The Court further recommends that the reduced working week be
introduced in Dublin Bus with effect from 1st May, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 1991 John O'Connell
B.O'N. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman