Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92180 Case Number: AD92191 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner recommendation No. CW464/91 in a dispute concerning compensation for a worker.
Recommendation:
While it accepts the Company contention that delays in revising
time allowances are inevitable because of a variety of factors,
the Court nevertheless considers that there was unreasonable delay
in this case. Accordingly the Court considers that the increase
of 20 minutes should apply from the commencement of the 1991
school year - i.e. From September, 1991.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92180 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner recommendation
No. CW464/91 in a dispute concerning compensation for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in January,
1989, as a part-time school bus driver. During 1989, minor
adjustments were made to the running time allocated to the worker
on his school run. In August, 1990 the worker wrote to the
Company seeking a review of his operating time. The worker was
advised that the Inspector responsible for the particular area was
on annual leave but that the matter would be dealt with on his
return. In June, 1991, as there were no further developments, the
Union again contacted the Company. In its reply the Company
stated that though the Inspector had travelled the route the study
on the running time would not be finalised until a further
inspection was carried out at the commencement of the new school
year in September, 1991.
As the matter was still unresolved it was referred to the Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Prior to a
hearing by a Rights Commissioner the Company completed its study
and as a result twenty minutes were added to the worker's
operating time from 2nd December, 1991. The Union contended that,
due to the fact that the route had not dramatically changed since
1989 and to the delay by the Company in making the adjustment, the
worker was entitled to retrospection. The Company rejected the
claim.
A Rights Commissioner investigated the claim on 7th February, 1992
and the following recommendation issued on 26th February, 1992:
"I recommend that the worker accepts that no compensation is
merited in this dispute".
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Rights Commissioners recommendation was appealed to the Labour
Court by the Union in accordance with Section 36(2) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
in Athlone on Tuesday 11th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During 1989 minor adjustments were made to the worker's
operating board which involved twenty minutes extra working
time on the route. The Union contends that the route had not
altered so significantly in 1991 as to warrant a further
twenty minutes. It claims that had earlier adjustments been
checked the adjustments made in 1989 would have been greater
and as such it claims retrospection for the worker back to the
commencement of his job in January, 1989.
2. The time taken by the Company to carry out the study
from receipt of the complaint in August, 1990 was excessive
and totally unacceptable to the Union. The worker has
suffered as a result of this delay in that he worked the extra
time without any remuneration or compensation whatsoever.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Operating times of part-time drivers are often decreased
or increased as a result of periodic checks and reviews of
their routes. Such changes are influenced by various factors
such as the number of stops, road conditions and the number of
pupils. Any changes are implemented currently and it is not
the practice of the Company to pay retrospection where a time
has been increased or to seek repayment of monies already paid
where a running time has been decreased.
2. The worker's claim was investigated and responded to
within a reasonable length of time. There was no intention on
the part of the Company to delay the investigation but due to
the fact that each Inspector has a very large area and many
routes to cover, any investigation/study can take a
considerable length of time.
DECISION:
While it accepts the Company contention that delays in revising
time allowances are inevitable because of a variety of factors,
the Court nevertheless considers that there was unreasonable delay
in this case. Accordingly the Court considers that the increase
of 20 minutes should apply from the commencement of the 1991
school year - i.e. From September, 1991.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th August, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
A. O'S/U.S. ---------------
Chairman