Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92502 Case Number: LCR13789 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union for re-imbursement of legal fees to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court regards as appropriate and reasonable the Company
policy of not undertaking the defence of driving offences except
in circumstances where the Company clearly has a culpability and
notes the Union statement that it is not contesting that policy
through this case.
The circumstances of this case were unusual in a number of
respects and caused serious concern to the claimant until he was
eventually adjudged to be blameless. In addition the charges
involved him in considerable expense.
While the Company was not responsible for the claimant's
misfortune and loss, the Court considers that the circumstances of
the case merit a sympathetic approach by the Company to his
plight. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company make an
ex-gratia payment to him of #175. The payment must not be
construed as breaching Company policy regarding the defence of
driving offences.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92502 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for re-imbursement of legal fees to a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a driver.
While operating the Limerick to Shannon service, he was involved
in a traffic accident (details supplied to the Court). He was
convicted of driving without due care and attention and fined in
the District Court. He subsequently appealed his conviction to
the Circuit Court and was successful in his appeal. His legal
fees amounted to #338.80. The Union, on behalf of the worker, is
seeking re-imbursement of the fees involved. Management rejected
the claim. The Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation but the Company objected to such an
investigation. Subsequently the Union referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 29th September,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the driver's exoneration by the Circuit Court
he was presented with a bill for #338.80. The Company should
pay this cost as the driver was charged with an alleged
offence which resulted from an accident while he was carrying
out his normal duties on a particularly difficult route. The
Company was saved the expense of contesting a claim for
damages from the other party. The Company offered him a loan
which would have to be repaid at #10 per week. This was
rejected by the Union. The Union does not seek to create a
precedent by this claim. It seeks to ensure that the Company
fulfils its obligation to employees. The Company has met the
legal costs of drivers faced with legal action resulting from
accidents which occurred while they were engaged in their
normal duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Company policy not to undertake the defence of
prosecutions on behalf of its workers concerning driving
offences. Exceptions to this policy are parking offences,
untaxed vehicle offences, and offences relating to defective
equipment. The factors governing Company policy arise from
consideration of the workers' own interests.
2. It was the driver's personal decision to appeal the
findings of the District Court to the Circuit Court. The
Company had no control or involvement in the expenses
incurred. It would contravene Company policy to provide legal
aid or pay the legal fees of staff involved in cases of this
nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court regards as appropriate and reasonable the Company
policy of not undertaking the defence of driving offences except
in circumstances where the Company clearly has a culpability and
notes the Union statement that it is not contesting that policy
through this case.
The circumstances of this case were unusual in a number of
respects and caused serious concern to the claimant until he was
eventually adjudged to be blameless. In addition the charges
involved him in considerable expense.
While the Company was not responsible for the claimant's
misfortune and loss, the Court considers that the circumstances of
the case merit a sympathetic approach by the Company to his
plight. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company make an
ex-gratia payment to him of #175. The payment must not be
construed as breaching Company policy regarding the defence of
driving offences.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th October, 1992 ---------------
T. O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.