Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93343 Case Number: LCR14143 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Hearing arising from L.C.R. 13414 concerning the date from which the 39 hour week should be implemented.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
arising out of the terms of Labour Court Recommendation 13414. It
is of the opinion that it was clear from the terms of that
recommendation that it did not favour a uniform date of
implementation. The Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the Unions' claim that the effective date of the
reduction of hours should date back to 1st July, 1991.
Having regard to the complex task of applying the adjustment in
various work places the Court is of the view that for those who
concluded negotiations and had the terms implemented on or before
1st December, 1991 no retrospection should apply.
For those who settled between that date and the 1st April, 1992
retrospection to 1st December, 1991 should apply. For those for
whom settlement was further delayed a maximum of six months,
retrospection should apply subject to the condition that in any
such case retrospection should not apply to a date earlier than
1st December, 1991.
As regard the drivers and conductors on non-city bus services the
Court is of the view that the Company was interpreting the terms
of the P.N.R. too rigidly. There are many instances in which it
was not possible to arrange the reduced hours in such a manner as
to be socially favourable to the workers concerned and in these
circumstances recoupment of the cost was not possible.
The same circumstances seem to apply to the present claimants, in
which case the Court recommends that the Company agree to pay
overtime for the hour in question with retrospective effect of 6
months from the date of this recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93343 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14143
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Hearing arising from L.C.R. 13414 concerning the date from
which the 39 hour week should be implemented.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1989 the Unions commenced negotiations with the
Company, on behalf of 1,500 bus workers, engineering operatives
and craftworkers, on the introduction and implementation of a
39-hour week in accordance with the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Court investigated the issue on
3rd September, 1991 and issued L.C.R. 13414 dated 14th October,
1991 as follows:-
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues which arise from the claim for a
reduction of hours in the Company. Whilst the Court is aware
of and acknowledges the very serious financial plight of the
Company, it is of the opinion that proposals to modify even
for a fixed duration, the impact of the reduction of hours on
the means of calculation of overtime, on overtime
arrangements themselves, are not within the spirit of the
relevant terms of the P.N.R.
For this reason the Court does not consider that the
Company's proposal to modify the overtime divisor, or amend
the payment for the first hour of overtime should be attached
as conditions to the offer of a reduction of hours.
On the other hand the Company is clearly entitled under the
same terms to (a) minimise any adverse effects on costs and
employment arising from the hours reduction and (b) to
achieve the objective of the Framework Agreement that the
reduction in working hours (time) be effected without
recourse to overtime working.
The Court notes that local discussions are continuing to
arrive at agreements on this issue which are relevant to the
particular working groups within the organisation. It
further notes that difficulties arise for both parties
concerning the fixing of a date of implementation. In order
to assist the resolution of the problem the Court recommends
as follows:
(a) that all sections of the pay roll who have agreed on
means of implementation should have the reduction in
hours introduced with effect from 1st July, 1991.
(b) that all sections who reach agreement on the means of
implementation within three weeks of the date of issue
of this recommendation should have the terms implemented
from the same date.
(c) in sections where the parties are unable to reach
agreement within the above terms the Court recommends
that the issue of an implementation date be the subject
of a further supplementary recommendation when the Court
will recommend a date having regard to the circumstances
which give rise to the delay.
Finally the Court is satisfied that under the relevant terms
of the P.N.R. crews whose normal rostered working week is
less than forty hours do not qualify for any reduction in
hours".
3. The 39-hour week was implemented in respect of different
groups of workers on various dates between 19th October, 1991 and
28th November, 1992. The Unions subsequently claimed that the
effective date for the implementation of the 39-hour week and the
calculation of the hourly rate at 1/39th should be 1st July, 1991.
The Company rejected the claim. As discussions at local level
failed to reach agreement the parties agreed to refer the issue
back to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation in
accordance with the terms of L.C.R. 13414. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 15th June, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The delays in reaching agreement for various groups of
workers were caused by the Company. In some instances
agreements which were eventually put in place were similar to
agreements which had been reached locally early in 1991
(details supplied to the Court).
2. In view of the these delays it is the Unions' view that an
implementation date of 1st July, 1991 for all categories of
workers is appropriate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Every effort was made to conclude negotiations on the
implementation of the 39-hour week for all staff involved
within the terms contained in L.C.R. 13414.
2. The concession of the 39-hour week and the increase in
overtime payments with effect from the dates agreements were
reached for particular staff was the only realistic way of
discharging the Company's obligation in this regard.
3. The Company does not have the financial resources to meet
any other costs associated with the 39 hour basic working
week.
RECOMMENDATION
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
arising out of the terms of Labour Court Recommendation 13414. It
is of the opinion that it was clear from the terms of that
recommendation that it did not favour a uniform date of
implementation. The Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the Unions' claim that the effective date of the
reduction of hours should date back to 1st July, 1991.
Having regard to the complex task of applying the adjustment in
various work places the Court is of the view that for those who
concluded negotiations and had the terms implemented on or before
1st December, 1991 no retrospection should apply.
For those who settled between that date and the 1st April, 1992
retrospection to 1st December, 1991 should apply. For those for
whom settlement was further delayed a maximum of six months,
retrospection should apply subject to the condition that in any
such case retrospection should not apply to a date earlier than
1st December, 1991.
As regard the drivers and conductors on non-city bus services the
Court is of the view that the Company was interpreting the terms
of the P.N.R. too rigidly. There are many instances in which it
was not possible to arrange the reduced hours in such a manner as
to be socially favourable to the workers concerned and in these
circumstances recoupment of the cost was not possible.
The same circumstances seem to apply to the present claimants, in
which case the Court recommends that the Company agree to pay
overtime for the hour in question with retrospective effect of 6
months from the date of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
21st July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.