Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93444 Case Number: AD93110 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST297/93.
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__________________________________________________________________
CD93444 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11093
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 against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST297/93.
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 that 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. The Company had been informed on numerous occasions by
letter, from 24th January, 1991 to 17th September, 1992
(details supplied) of the problems with defective buses, but
refused to act. Drivers are responsible under law for the
safety of passengers and vehicle. A driver who knowingly
drives a defective bus is liable for prosecution, not the
Company or management.
2. The Company was informed on 18th December, 1992 that a
vehicle check would take place on 22nd December, 1992 at 6.00
a.m. A meeting was arranged for 21st December, 1992 by the
Company, between the garage superintendent and the Union bus
section chairman to discuss the problems. The garage
superintendent failed to attend.
3. Signing off sheets were filled out on 22nd December,
1992 and drivers refused to drive buses that they regarded as
unsafe. The drivers concerned had 1.25 hours' pay deducted for
their refusal to drive buses with defects.
4. The Union has for many years tried to have the reporting
of defective buses by drivers recorded in a book so that a
permanent record would be available. The Company has refused
to agree to this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union wrote to the Company advising that there would
be a vehicles 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 stewards 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
21st 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.