Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93441 Case Number: AD93109 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST130/93.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the action of the drivers on the morning
concerned, albeit collective action, was not industrial action.
In the view of the Court, the action derived from the
unwillingness of the drivers to operate vehicles with defects,
which could lead to legal implications.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Company.
The Court recommends that the parties seek to put in place
arrangements which will ensure that all drivers notify the Company
of defects on buses, and which will ensure that any defects
notified are dealt with expeditiously.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93441 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST130/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a claim by a number of Bus Eireann
drivers for loss of pay for refusing to drive buses on the
morning of 22nd December, 1992.
2. The drivers concerned refused to drive the buses,
alleging that the buses had a number of defects which made
them unsafe to drive. The Union informed the Company of its
intention to carry out a vehicle check on the morning of 22nd
December, 1992. Signing off sheets were filled out and
drivers refused to drive buses which they regarded as
defective.
3. Buses deemed defective were off the road until 9.00 a.m.
on the morning of 22nd December, 1992. The Company states
that the dispute was intended to cause as much disruption to
the public as possible. The Union states that the refusal to
drive the buses was in the interest of the public and of the
drivers.
4. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner
Service on 8th June, 1993. A rights Commissioner's
Recommendation issued as follows on 28th June, 1993.
"Sufficient notice over an extended period was given to
management to avoid the incident and on that basis I
recommend in the particular circumstances involved, that
the Company concedes the claim on a non-prejudicial
basis".
The recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour
Court on 23rd July, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 22nd November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the responsibility of the driver, by law, to make
sure that the bus he/she is driving is safe and roadworthy.
Drivers have repeatedly informed the garage superintendent at
meetings of the defects in buses but there has been no
response from the Company to improve matters.
2. It is not possible for drivers to check buses for
defects by themselves. On the morning of 22nd December, 1992
it was necessary to involve Union representatives. Drivers
refused to drive defective buses on their own initiative.
They were not instructed by Union representatives to do so.
3. Drivers who are found to be in charge of defective buses
are themselves held responsible, not the Company. A driver
has the right to refuse to drive a defective vehicle.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union wrote to the Company advising that there would
be a vehicle check on the morning of 22nd December, 1992. It
was presumed that this would be a standard check, whereby any
minor defects would be reported and rectified at a later
stage. In this instance drivers were instructed by Union
shop stewards not to drive buses with alleged defects. This
is not part of shop steward's function. These buses could
have been checked the previous night and any defects
rectified overnight.
2. It was the Union's intention to cause as much disruption
as possible to the public. More than 600 people were left
without a bus service for 2 hours. Following a meeting with
the Union the 10 buses involved were put back on the road.
All were found to be roadworthy with only minor defects.
3. It is not Company policy to pay workers for time not
worked as it could lead to similar incidents in the future.
4. There is a standard procedure for the checking and
reporting of buses with defects. By having the shop stewards
tell drivers which buses not to drive, the Union did not
adhere to the procedure.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the action of the drivers on the morning
concerned, albeit collective action, was not industrial action.
In the view of the Court, the action derived from the
unwillingness of the drivers to operate vehicles with defects,
which could lead to legal implications.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Company.
The Court recommends that the parties seek to put in place
arrangements which will ensure that all drivers notify the Company
of defects on buses, and which will ensure that any defects
notified are dealt with expeditiously.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21th December, 1993 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L.
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Decision should by addressed to Mr.
Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.