Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93288 Case Number: LCR14079 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from the implemention of a revised Bus Network in Sector 7.
Recommendation:
3. 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, that
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 Revenue 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.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93288 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14079
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from the implemention of a revised Bus Network
in Sector 7.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was referred to the Court on the 30th of April,
1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th and 7th
May, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. 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, that
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 Revenue 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.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
12th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.