LCR14112

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93335 Case Number: LCR14112 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUPS

Subject:
Dispute concerning rates of pay for Dublin Bus craftworkers.

Recommendation:
The Full Document is available in the Database.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD93335 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14112

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990


PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS

and

IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUPS


SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay for Dublin Bus craftworkers.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 245 engineering
craftworkers. These workers are based at the Company's six
garages located at various sites throughout the City.

3. In February, 1990 the Unions lodged a claim on behalf of the
craftworkers for a substantial pay increase on the basis that
their rates of pay had slipped out of line with those of other
comparable employments. The Company rejected the claim.

4. Subsequently negotiations commenced around a number of
productivity measures identified by the Company i.e.

(1) Reduction in the number of shift mechanics.

(2) The right to use outside contractors.

(3) The integration of crafts.

(4) The right of non-craft workers to carry out certain types
of craftwork.

(5) Craftworkers to carry out tasks other than craftwork.

(6) The introduction of flexible starting times.

(7) Interchangeability between garages.

(8) Alteration in supervisory relief arrangements.



Lengthy negotiations (including a number of conciliation
conferences) resulted in three draft agreements being presented by
the Company. The latest draft entitled "Adapting Vehicle
Maintenance to a Changing Role" was presented on 9th December,
1992.

5. The draft agreement provided for 46 redundancies and major
changes in work practices (details supplied to the Court). In
return the Company offered

- #37 per week pay increase in two phases; #27 from 1st
February, 1993 and #10 from 1st January, 1994. (This is
inclusive of a tool allowance of #3 per week).

- An attendance bonus scheme (value #200).

- Lead-hand to be paid #20 per week over and above basic
rate of pay.

- Lead-in payment (value #300) for every craftworker.

- #10 per week allowance for those craftworkers who came
off shift-work plus compensation for loss of earnings
(subject to a maximum of #5,000).

- A tool voucher of #100 in advance (repayable over 20
weeks).

- Permanent transfer compensation of #500 for staff with
between two years' and ten years' service; #600 for staff
with more than ten years' service.

- Temporary transfer - #3.35 per day to a maximum of five
days.

This offer was inclusive of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). This
document was rejected by the Unions.

6. In February, 1993 the Unions requested the Company to re-open
negotiations with a view to improving its offer. The Company
informed the Unions that it was not in a position to improve its
offer but that it would meet the Unions to deal with any points of
clarification.

7. On the 2nd April, 1993 the Company wrote to the Unions
regarding shift mechanics in Summerhill Garage stating that it
intended to reduce the number on shift from eight to five with
effect from 2nd May, 1993 because of reduced maintenance
requirements. (This issue had been raised previously and was held
in abeyance pending the outcome of negotiations on the
productivity agreement). The Unions rejected the proposal and the
issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. In the
meantime the Unions served strike notice to take effect on 23rd
May, 1993 in pursuit of their wage claim. Conciliation



conferences were held on 10th and 18th May, 1993. The parties
agreed to refer the following amendments to the Productivity
Agreement to their respective principals for agreement:-

"(a) Having regard to loss of Sunday duty for mechanics coming
off shift, a sum of #4,500 representing two and a half
times the annual loss will be payable on implementation
of the second phase increase. This sum is additional to
the sum of #5,000 payable for loss of shift.

(b) The ongoing additional payment of #10 per week to
mechanics coming off shift will not now be payable as it
is subsumed within the additional compensation.

(c) The first phase increase will be implemented on 1st July,
1993 and the second phase increase on 1st January, 1994.

(d) Early starting times of 06.00 and 07.00 hours are amended
to 07.00 hours only.

(e) Limited work, as defined in the document, in excess of 40
hours on a single vehicle will not be automatically sent
to an outside contractor.

(f) The paragraph at the end of Appendix 3 (Roadside Changes)
is amended to read:

"This list represents the current requirements in
relation to roadside changes to be undertaken by
Engineering Operatives. Further changes, not
involving safety or corrective action before
proceeding, will be undertaken providing the changes
are typified in the above list".

(g) Only Engineering Operatives on shift-work (day, late, and
night) and Group 1 Engineering Operatives on day work
will be requested to undertake the tasks listed in
Appendix 4".

8. These proposals were rejected by the workers following a
ballot. Industrial Action commenced on 23rd May, 1993. The
Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the dispute
to the Labour Court on 27th May, 1993 for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 28th May and 14th
June, 1993.




UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The monetary element on offer is insufficient to
compensate for the changes sought under the Productivity
Agreement (details supplied to the Court).

2. The 3% increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. should be
excluded as negotiations on the present document pre-date the
P.E.S.P. The wage increase offered by the Company restores
the pay of the workers concerned to the average pay structures
prevailing in the industry generally. If the Company wish to
deal with the issue of Clause 3 it should pay the 3% increase
over and above what is on offer.

3. The craftworkers are not prepared to have any other group
carry out any part of their duties.

4. The proposed introduction of the revised starting times is
seen as the introduction of a new type of shift and
accordingly should carry a premium payment

5. The amount of compensation for loss of shift is
insufficient as it does not adequately address the workers'
loss of future earnings.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The maintenance function in Dublin Bus is changing
radically due to investment in new vehicles. The Company must
be in a position to adapt to these changes.

2. The Unions' claim for a substantial pay increase can only
be met through productivity. The productivity document of
December, 1992 is the result of 3 years negotiations and is a
fair and equitable means of meeting both the Company's and
Unions' aspirations

3. There is no pay relationship with any other group of
companies and, in any event, previous pay settlements based on
productivity would have broken up such relationships had they
existed.

4. Special pay increases or other cost-increasing claims are
prohibited under Clause 5 of the P.E.S.P. Also the Company's
financial resources could not meet such cost-increasing claims
and any additional costs cannot be recouped through fares
increases.


*RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court has considered the submissions both written and
oral made by the parties at the hearing, and has the following
observations to make in the light of these.

It is clear that, very early on in discussions on the original
claim for an increase based on comparison with external rates,
the parties agreed to progress the negotiations on the basis of a
productivity-type arrangement.

This being the case it has an important bearing on the ability of
the Court to deal with certain of the issues raised in relation to
the operational terms of the agreement entitled "Adapting Vehicle
Maintenance to a Changing Role". It is a feature of such
agreements, in the view of the Court, that the sole justifiable
source of funds to meet the proposed increase in rates derives
from implementation of the operational changes and changed work
practices provided for in the Agreement itself. These changes in
this instance allow for a reduction in staffing, which reduction
in turn provides the savings from which the monetary benefits are
disbursed.

Within these constraints the Court has considered how best the
present impasse might be ended. It does so with a sense of
urgency having regard to the background in which the present
dispute is taking place.

It does seem that there exists at the present time a groundswell
of public opinion which would favour an efficient and reliable
public transport system as a means of remedying the present
traffic congestion in Dublin City. Dublin Bus is presently in an
ideal position to benefit from this public sentiment if present
plans are put into operation and the necessary capital programme
implemented.



Nobody could argue that the Company is now held in high public
esteem. If it is perceived that it is not capable of change
without severe disruption and industrial strife the result could
be a serious and possibly fatal decline in public support.

For this reason the Court has decided to make the following
recommendations conscious that the monetary terms it recommends
will in fact deprive the Company of any short to medium-term gains
from the Agreement.

These recommendations relate in the main to issues highlighted in
the I.C.T.U. written submissions but also to the greatest extent
possible deal with matters raised at the hearing.

Non-Craftworkers carrying out Craft work:

Having regard to the type of agreement which has been negotiated
the Court does not consider it can make any changes in the terms
of Appendices 3 and 4 as they stand. Having regard to the fears
expressed by craft representatives the Court is of the view that
the best safeguard against unacceptable encroachment into
craftwork lies in the review of the Agreement which may be held at
the request of either party. After only one year in operation at
that stage the full impact of the changes under this heading and
other related matters will be clear to all and can be dealt with
in practical terms and may avoid damaging the agreement itself.

Non-Core Activities:

The Court notes, on the basis of clarification, that this matter
is no longer at issue.



Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.:

The Court does not consider that any further concession under this
clause is due having regard to the terms of the Remuneration
Clause of the Agreement. However, having regard to the critical
situation in which both the workers and the Company find
themselves it recommends the following adjustments to the basic
pay elements, conscious as it has stated above, that it is thereby
depriving the Company of all short to medium-term gains from the
Agreement.

Phase I increase in basic rates to be increased by a further #3
per week

Phase II increase in basic rates to be increased by a further #2
per week.

Working Hours - Variable Starts:

The Court does not consider this arrangement is in any way
equivalent to shift work in terms of disturbance or inconvenience
but does take the view that workers who take part in the system
should be paid a premium of #4.50 per day whilst so rostered.

Shift Working:

The Court does not recommend any further adjustment in the
Company's offer of compensatory payments for loss of shift. As to
the design of new working rosters these are, in its view, matters
to be settled at local level. On the question of potential losses
arising out of the loss of opportunity to do shift relief work the
Court is of the view that such potential loss must be offset
against the substantial permanent gains in basic rates.



Loss of Overtime arising out of new working arrangements:

The Court is of the opinion that in this instance, where such
overtime was carried out on an informal, but consistent roster
over a period of years, this loss would warrant the payment of
compensation on the same basis as regular and rostered overtime.
The Court assumes that work records will be available to
substantiate claims which may arise under this heading.

Lead in Payment:

The Court recommends that this be increased to #600 plus 50
tokens.

Finally the Court feels that in recommending the above amendments
to the Agreement it has stretched to the limit the monetary terms
deriving from it and earnestly recommends that they be accepted by
all concerned.

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.