Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93356 Case Number: LCR14111 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of Quality Corridors in the Cabra, Castleknock and Blanchardstown areas.
Recommendation:
The Full Document is available in the Database.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93356 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14111
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of Quality Corridors in
the Cabra, Castleknock and Blanchardstown areas.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1991, the Company undertook intensive market
research into its operations in order to design a service which
would meet community needs and be commercially viable. In
addition to customer responses, consultations with Trade Unions,
Community Groups and Public Representatives took place.
3. Because of the wide scope of the Company's operations, it was
decided to implement the Network Review in nine sectors of the
City on a phased basis. The first sector to reach the final
design and implementation stage is Sector 7. This sector covers
the Cabra, Castleknock and Blanchardstown areas and is serviced by
Phibsboro and Conyngham Road Garages.
4. The Company's proposals for Sector 7 include the introduction
of a Quality Corridor and a high frequency minibus operation. The
Quality Corridor would be based on Route 39 (Blanchardstown to
City Centre) and would provide a high frequency service using high
quality single-deck buses along a direct route to the City Centre.
It would also provide staff training and improvements in operating
speeds (details supplied to the Court). This concept has been
adopted by the Dublin Transport Initiative (D.T.I.). It was also
proposed to introduce mini-buses on Route 22 which would
eventually replace the large capacity buses on that Route.
5. The Company's proposals would have the following effects on
staff:-
(a) The transfer of Routes 37 and 70 from Conyngham Road to
Phibsboro Depot. This affects 11 marked-in Drivers in
Conyngham Road who have the option of remaining in their
depot or transferring with the routes to Phibsboro.
(b) Re-organisation of the service on Route 22/22A involving
the introduction of a mini-bus service on part of the
route. A maximum of twenty-one staff will be displaced
off the route and will operate spare duties but will be
eligible to apply for vacancies on this or other routes.
(c) Route 70 on transfer to Phibsboro will operate as a
combined Route 70/38.
(d) The introduction of mini-buses on the new Route 120
(Cabra to City Centre) involving the employment of 28
newly recruited mini-bus drivers specifically for this
new service. An additional low frequency mini-bus
service will operate in the Blanchardstown area.
(e) The introduction of a Quality Bus Corridor using
CitySwift large capacity single-deck buses. This will
mean an additional sixteen drivers to Route 39.
All workers directly affected by the changes would be
compensated (details supplied to the Court).
6. Consultation on these proposals took place with the Unions
during 1992. The specific details on Sector 7 were conveyed by
the Company to the Unions by letter on 23rd March, 1993 with a
proposed implementation date of 11th April, 1993. This date was
postponed pending the outcome of negotiations. The Unions
submitted the following claims in return for the implementation of
the Network Review:-
S.I.P.T.U. - Reduction of one hour in working-week
- Revised rest-day payment
- Compensation for busworkers directly
affected to be increased
- increase of 3% for all busworkers
under Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
N.B.R.U. - One hour reduction in the working-week
- Bus pass for spouses of busworkers
- Compensation of busworkers directly
affected to be increased
- Increase of 3% under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. for all busworkers.
Both Unions objected to the introduction of mini-buses as proposed
by the Company.
7. As the Company's response (details supplied to the Court) did
not meet the Unions' aspirations, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held
on 13th, 28th and 29th April, 1993. As no agreement was possible
the Commission, with the consent of the parties referred the
dispute to the Labour Court on 30th April, 1993 for investigation
and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th and 7th May,
1993 following which the Court issued recommendation L.C.R. 14079
dated 12th May, 1993 which recommended:-
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
From the accounts put forward at the hearing, it would seem
that whilst the Company outlined its general policy as far
back as July, 1992, difficulties have arisen when attempting
to deal with specific and detailed proposals such as those
put forward in its Network Review of Sector 7, which is
itself the precursor of similar reviews to take place
city-wide.
Whilst the detailed document has given rise to a number of
questions as to the long-term implications of the changes for
the Unions and their members, the Court is at a loss to
understand how these were not foreseen long before the
specific Network proposals in Sector 7 were put forward for
implementation.
As a consequence, the situation now before the Court is
confused, to say the least, but may broadly be separated into
three issues.
On the one hand the Company has presented proposals for the
new service in Sector 7, whilst on the other hand the Unions
have put forward a variety of claims - some general and
related to P.E.S.P., others specific and related to changes
arising from the Sector 7 review - and in yet another
category is the question of the operation of mini-buses on
Route 22.
"It is the view of the Court that all attempts at negotiations
have been overshadowed by the question of the extension of a
mini-bus service onto Route 22. The Company for its part
maintains that the extension of such services is a vital and
necessary part of their proposals to provide a good service,
and, if possible attract more customers.
On the other hand, the Unions have concern as to the eventual
long-term impact of such changes on the numbers and
conditions of service of their present and future members.
It is right and proper that the Unions should seek all
reassurances possible in respect of these matters, but it
does not seem practical, or even useful, to have the Company
spell out in all detail the full impact of the planned
changes. Even if it were feasible, it would reduce the
ability of all concerned to adapt flexibly to changes which
might be made to the plan, arising from unforeseen extraneous
factors.
It would seem more sensible to the Court that, having
established the terms and conditions under which changes
should occur, the parties jointly monitor their
implementation, as they apply in each Sector.
More specifically, in view of statements made at the hearing
the Court would wish to point out that, in the context of the
Agreement for High Frequency Mini-bus Operators, it does not
view the provisions of Clause 2(D) as a veto on the extension
of such services by either party, and in particular, it notes
that Route 22 is one of the services specifically named in
that Agreement.
The Court has gone into this detail in respect of this
question to provide a pointer for those who may become
involved in implementing the terms of its recommendation,
which is as follows:
(a) The Court, not having heard any arguments in respect
of the various monetary claims made by the Unions,
does not at this stage propose to make any
recommendations thereon, as without prejudice to
either Company or Unions, it does not at this stage
wish to place an impediment on any possibility of a
direct settlement, however unlikely this may be.
(b) That both the Company and the Unions agree to
implement as and from Monday next, the 17th instant,
all elements of the Network Review of Sector 7, with
the exception of the introduction of Mini-buses on
Route 22.
" (c) That the above arrangement continue for 1 month from
the 17th of May, during which time the parties,
using the experience they are gaining from the
operation, will negotiate on all the detailed points
which have been raised in respect of all the
changes.
In the event of failure to reach agreement on any particular
point, the Court undertakes to arrange a Hearing, and issue a
recommendation at the earliest possible date thereafter,
without further formality."
8. Following the issue of the recommendation, the Company
postponed the implementation date of Sector 7 until 28th May, 1993
to allow discussions on schedules for the Quality Corridor and to
allow staff transfers to take place. Discussions at local level
took place on 17th and 18th May, 1993 at which the Company
proposed to defer the implementation of mini-buses on Route 22 for
one month from 17th May, 1993 and amended the compensatory
elements for staff directly affected by the implementation of
Sector 7. The Unions considered that the Company was not
addressing adequately the substantive elements of their claims and
further meetings were held between the parties and the Court on
21st May, 1993, 2nd and 4th June, 1993.
9. The Company attempted to introduce the Quality Corridor on
Sector 7, on 28th May, 1993 but the workers concerned refused to
operate the revised schedules and were suspended. S.I.P.T.U.
subsequently took industrial action.
10. Following the meeting held on 4th June, 1993 the Court issued
the following undertaking to the parties:-
"It is agreed on the Court undertaking to arrange a hearing
not later than Friday next 11th of June, 1993 at which to
hear submissions on all outstanding issues with the exception
of the introduction of minibuses, and to issue an early
recommendation thereafter, that
(i) no dispute will take place tomorrow 5th June, 1993;
(ii) that as and from Sunday 6th June, 1993 all elements
of the Network Review of Sector 7 with the
exception of minibuses on Route 22 will be
implemented;
(iii) discussions on the issue of minibuses will commence
immediately after the terms of the recommendation
are published.
It is further agreed that the position of the drivers who
have been suspended will be dealt with through domestic
procedures.
"The Court in the light of the above hereby undertakes to
commence the Hearing on a date not later than the 11th of
June, 1993 as requested".
A further Labour Court hearing took place on 10th June, 1993 in
accordance with this undertaking.
UNIONS' AND COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Reduction of one hour in working-week:
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The revised bus schedules in Sector 7 increase the
frequency and times of bus journeys on each roster which
results in greater demands and increased pressures on the
workers concerned (details supplied to the Court).
2. Concession of the claim would not lead to repercussive
claims from other groups of workers as the revised schedules
only affect bus crews.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The length of the working-week was a major feature of
negotiations on the introduction of one person operation
(O.P.O.), and a reduction in the working-week formed part of
the agreement on O.P.O. The Union is now seeking an extension
of this agreement to take cognizance of the increased
pressures and obligations on the workers concerned in
operating the revised schedules.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The revised schedules are in line with current agreements.
2. There are extra buses and staff deployed on the affected
routes.
3. Concession of the claim would impose a major cost on the
Company.
Compensation for Busworkers directly affected by Sector 7
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The Company has paid reasonable lump sums in the past
arising from major changes. The amount of compensation now on
offer is out of line with previous settlements.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
15. 1. The compensatory amounts should be based on realistic
base-rates.
2. Compensation should be made on grounds other than monetary
terms in view of the seniority of some of the workers
concerned i.e., facilitated by vacancies on other routes or
given the option of availing of voluntary severance (details
supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. The package on offer is fair and reasonable in view of the
changes sought.
2. Voluntary severance is not an option as there are no
redundancies involved.
Revised Rest-day Payment:
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. Workers who currently work their rest-days receive a day
and a half's wages based on an average day's pay. The Union
is seeking that workers be paid premium payments on the actual
hours worked. The duties for rest-day working vary from a
5.50-hour day to an 8-hour day. When this agreement was reached
it was envisaged that there would be an even spread of duties.
However circumstances have changed which have resulted in a
requirement to work more long duties than short duties. The
rosters on the Quality Corridor compound this situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
18. 1. The present arrangements on rest-day working were
introduced to meet Unions' aspirations and form part of a
National Agreement.
2. Concession of the claim would impact across the Company.
Bus Passes for Spouses
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
19. 1. The Union's claim is in line with similar concessions
already in operation in other transport companies (details
supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
20. 1. Concession of the Union's claim is to costly.
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
21. 1. The changes which will arise as a result of the
introduction of the Quality Corridor fall to be dealt with
under Clause 3. The Company will benefit from increased
productivity due to more frequent and faster bus-journeys
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company will also achieve savings as a result of the
elimination of rostered overtime working.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
22. 1. The Company has already achieved considerable savings over
the past number of years. The proposed changes will enhance
these savings and lead to greater productivity and efficiency
which meets the terms of Clause 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
23. 1. The Company will incur considerable start-up costs as a
result of the introduction of Network Review. The Company is
targeting increased customer use of its buses to generate
extra revenue and will not benefit from the changes in the
short-term.
2. The Company's proposals are covered by existing agreements
and do not represent criteria for concession of the 3%
increase as defined by Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
3. The Company is prepared to enter into discussions with the
Unions on Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
*RECOMMENDATION:
24. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues before it.
It should at this stage point out that this Recommendation should
be considered in conjunction with Recommendation 14079 in
substitution for Paragraph (a) of that document. As far as the
Court is concerned all other terms of L.C.R. 14079 still stand and
should be implemented without further delay.
On the claims with which it was asked to deal on this occasion, as
a first general observation, the Court would not consider the
concession of any of the demands as being warranted simply on foot
of limited implementation of the terms of the Network Review of
Sector 7, or indeed of any of the other sectors.
Neither in the opinion of the Court, do any of the claims have
intrinsic merits which in themselves would warrant a favourable
Recommendation regardless of context. This particularly applies
to the claims for reduction in hours and restructuring of rest-day
payments. It was on these two specific issues that detailed
arguments were put forward based on existing conditions and on
changes arising out of the introduction of of Quality Corridors.
The claim for a reduction in hours has already been subject to a
Court Recommendation and was rejected as being outside the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) which provided for
such reductions. As regards the amended payment for rest-day
working, from discussions and arguments made at the hearing, the
Court would have grave misgivings about conceding this claim
particularly as the current method of payment has such widespread
application outside Dublin Bus.
That having been said, the Court on the other hand does not agree
with the Company's assertion that the Network Review will not give
rise to any major changes in working conditions for the bus
workers involved.
If the full terms of the overall Network Review are implemented,
these will result in a major cultural change for Dublin Bus
workers, involving greater flexibility with regard to duties,
transfer of routes from garage to garage, loss of route identity,
and, if Company forecasts are even reasonably correct, a greater
intensification of work loads over the working day, by reason of
the increased passenger numbers.
For these reasons the Court is of the opinion that, if the parties
can reach agreement on the implementation of the full terms of the
Network Review, in accordance with the proposals put forward in
L.C.R. 14079, then a number of concessions on the claims made
would be warranted:-
(i) The Court is conscious that Dublin Bus carries a very
large burden of debt and also requires large sums for
investment in equipment in the immediate future.
Nevertheless it is strongly of the opinion that
agreement on the future trouble-free implementation of
the Network Review over all nine sectors warrants, in
itself, an immediate recognition and would be fully
justified under the terms of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Believing that by the time the third sector review has
been implemented any unforeseen obstacles will have
become apparent and will have been dealt with, the
Court recommends that at that date an adjustment of 1.50%
under the terms of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. be made. As
the benefits in terms of increased passenger numbers
should at that time begin to accrue to the Company, the
Court further recommends that the balance of 1.50% be
paid 6 months thereafter.
(ii) On the question of the reduction in hours, the Court is
of the opinion that, quite outside the terms of
P.E.S.P., given the bus-workers' co-operation with the
changes arising from the Review, and given the expected
increase in income to the Company, a reduction of one
hour, either by means of an easement of schedules or
other agreed method be granted to take effect as soon
as the terms of the Review are operational in all nine
sectors.
(iii) Insofar as the overtime lost, which qualified for
inclusion in holiday pay, derives from the changes
brought about by the Review, the Court recommends that
workers concerned be compensated by payment of a sum
equal to twice the amount of qualifying overtime which
was paid to each busworker in respect of the holiday
year 1992.
(iv) The Court recommends that the Company, during the
course of the implementation of the Review, reintroduce
voluntary severance terms for older workers who may not
be so able to adapt to the changes required of them.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for a
restructuring of rest-day payments.
The Court does not recommend a revision of the compensation for
busworkers directly affected by the changes.
The Court does not recommend that the Company grant bus passes for
spouses.
The Court hereby amends Paragraph (c) of L.C.R. 14079 to provide
that the time allowed therein be used to deal with the outstanding
issue of the minibus and the date stated be amended to read "one
month from the 18th June".
RECOMMENDATION:
The Full Document is available in the Database.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
17th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.