Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92645 Case Number: LCR13884 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Use of centre doors on buses.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The evidence presented raised the concern of the Court as to the
current safety of the operation of the centre doors of the bus
fleet.
It is the view of the Court that the operation of these doors as a
normal feature should only be considered when the Company are
perfectly satisfied that the safety arrangements agreed have been
fully implemented and are effective, operationally.
Subject to the above the Court considers that the centre doors
should normally be operated. Recognising the responsibility of
the Driver for his vehicle and passengers, whilst he should
normally operate the centre doors, he should carry out this
operation with prudence. Accordingly the Court considers that an
instruction to compulsorily operate the centre doors at all times
would be inappropriate.
With regard to a claim for compensation, the Court considers
Labour Court recommendation 9901 was made in the context of
compensating for all aspects of one person operating.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92645 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13884
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Use of centre doors on buses.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1986, the Labour Court issued Recommendation No.
L.C.R. 9901 concerning the introduction of one person operated
(O.P.O.) double deck and large capacity single deck buses. In
relation to centre door exits the Recommendation provided for
ongoing review of the operation. The Recommendation was accepted
by both parties.
In March, 1986, the first O.P.O. double deck bus was introduced.
Further conversions to O.P.O. were slow and by mid 1988 27% of the
Company's double deck duties had been converted. As a result the
Company did not implement centre door operation. It was decided
to leave centre door operation in abeyance until 75% conversion to
O.P.O. had been achieved. In 1988 discussions on a viability plan
took place. During the course of the discussions the Company
proposed that, as it was envisaged that 75% O.P.O. would be
achieved as a result of the viability plan, exit by centre doors
should be introduced. The Unions proposed that the Company should
introduce bye-laws which would place the onus on the passengers to
have a valid ticket before introducing centre doors operation. In
October, 1990, all driving staff were trained in centre door
operation.
In November, 1990, the new bye-laws were introduced. On 6th
November, 1990, discussions took place between the parties on
centre door operation. It was decided to set-up a monitoring
committee consisting of representatives from the Company and the
Unions to review the centre door operation and to make
recommendations to improve the operation.
The monitoring committee recommended some modifications to
equipment. In June, 1991, all modifications suggested had been
completed and the monitoring committee recommended that exit by
centre doors be operated. In July, 1991, the Unions submitted a
claim for compensation for the introduction of centre door
operation. The Company rejected the claims and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 10th July, 1992 and 19th October, 1992,
but no agreement could be reached and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 20th October, 1992. The Court hearing took
place on 30th October, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Company's view that the Manchester transport
system is the system most suitable to meet the needs of Dublin
Bus, yet there are no centre doors in operation in Manchester
because they contributed to accidents and both Unions and
management agreed to cease operation of centre doors.
2. In 1988, the first cross-city O.P.O. double deck bus was
introduced on the No. 19 route. The resources deployed in
operating centre doors were exceptional, including an extra
member of staff in a position beside the driver controlling
movements within the bus. When the back-up was withdrawn
problems immediately arose as follows:
(A) Drivers were not able to operate the centre doors while
maintaining confidence in the safety aspects of the
centre door operation.
(B) The use of centre doors wasted valuable running time,
putting extra pressure on drivers trying to maintain
schedules.
(C) Mechanically sound and road-worthy buses were left
stationery at the side of the road fully loaded,
immobilised because centre doors would not close
properly, or had failed to re-select gear after the doors
had closed.
3. The workers concerned have consistently rejected the idea
of centre doors operation primarily on the basis of safety and
the additional stress it would cause. The O.P.O. has already
stretched drivers to the limit and they cannot in fairness be
asked to take on further responsibilities which would lead to
abnormal stress.
4. Following acceptance of L.C.R. No. 9901 and the
implementation of O.P.O., no mention or effort to secure
centre door operation was evident from Dublin Bus. Major
reviews of all aspects of O.P.O. occurred in 1987 and 1989.
All aspects of O.P.O. were reviewed but centre door operation
was not an issue.
5. Resistance by the workers concerned to centre door
operation is based on concern for the safety of the passengers
and the responsibility thrust on the operator for any
accidents which might occur. It would be foolhardy to
implement compulsory use of centre doors in a city riddled
with illegal parking, narrow streets and a public whose
disregard for public transport regulations is well known.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Centre door operation is the norm in Europe for O.P.O. In
some cities there are buses with three and four doors for exit
purposes.
2. Because centre door operation was always going to be a
vital element of O.P.O., all of the Company's fleet since
1968, have been fitted with centre doors at a cost of #1.6
million.
3. As prepaid tickets are an essential part of O.P.O., the
front door is required to allow cash customers to board on the
left-hand side and prepaid customers can validate their
tickets on the right-hand side. This reduces delays as
passengers can board and alight simultaneously.
4. Standing passengers will not congregate towards the front
of the bus in order to exit by the front door, thereby
improving efficiency. This will speed up loading which will
significantly improve the quality of service.
5. The procedure for centre door operation will lead to a
safer operation by eliminating the confusion which currently
exists with passengers trying to board and alight at the same
time.
6. The Company has, over the past couple of years been
subject to much adverse comment due to the non-operation of
centre doors and this is compounded by the drivers
discretionary use of them. Press comment of this nature
damages the Company's image.
7. The reason the Company deferred the implementation of
centre door operation from 1988 is due to the Unions concerns
in relation to:
A. revenue security
B. safety
C. technical operating issues.
10. Since 1988, the Company has progressively addressed and
resolved all those issues at a cost of #.5 million through:
(A) the introduction of the Dublin Bus Bye-Laws
(B) modification to the door layouts and mechanisms
(C) the fitting of all vehicles with public address
systems
(D) staff training.
8. The Company has already paid for centre door operation by
way of thirty-three and one third per cent O.P.O. bonus and
other bonuses related to O.P.O. There is no justification for
a claim in this case as it was accepted by all parties in the
O.P.O. negotiations, that centre doors would form an integral
part of O.P.O. which was reflected in the productivity bonus
paid to drivers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The evidence presented raised the concern of the Court as to the
current safety of the operation of the centre doors of the bus
fleet.
It is the view of the Court that the operation of these doors as a
normal feature should only be considered when the Company are
perfectly satisfied that the safety arrangements agreed have been
fully implemented and are effective, operationally.
Subject to the above the Court considers that the centre doors
should normally be operated. Recognising the responsibility of
the Driver for his vehicle and passengers, whilst he should
normally operate the centre doors, he should carry out this
operation with prudence. Accordingly the Court considers that an
instruction to compulsorily operate the centre doors at all times
would be inappropriate.
With regard to a claim for compensation, the Court considers
Labour Court recommendation 9901 was made in the context of
compensating for all aspects of one person operating.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
9th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.