Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD949 Case Number: LCR14385 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - A WORKER;THE NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim for loss of earnings due to the elimination of seven day continuous working.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties. It is clear that it was a contractual condition of
employment that the worker worked every second Sunday (his rest
day). It is also clear that, in fact, he worked every Sunday by
mutual agreement. The unilateral changing of the worker's rest
day, albeit to comply with directions from the Department of
Tourism, Transport and Communications, by Bus Eireann caused a
considerable loss to the worker.
While acknowledging some validity in the Union's claim that the
worker's case is unique compared with the national claim for bus
drivers arising as a result of the adherence to the driving hours
regulations, the Court could not agree that any settlement that
might be made in this case would not affect or be used as a
precedent in the national discussions. The Court, therefore,
recommends that consideration of this case be deferred until
finality is reached in the national discussions.
The Court is concerned at the long delay in complying with Labour
Court Recommendation CD92432 and urges the parties to bring these
discussions to finality as soon as possible, as the long delay is
not conducive to the creation of a peaceful industrial relations
climate.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD949 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14385
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for loss of earnings due to the elimination of seven
day continuous working.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1992 inspectors from the Department of Tourism,
Transport and Communications concluded that drivers with the
Company were in breach of driving hours regulations. The
Company was instructed to end 7 day continuous working and
that instruction was implemented nationally from 13th April,
1992.
On 31st August, 1992 the Labour Court investigated a claim by
the N.B.R.U. and S.I.P.T.U. for payment of compensation for
loss of earnings, resulting from the Company's implementation
of driving hours regulation. The hearing was adjourned by
agreement of the Company and the 2 Unions, in order to allow
further talks to take place to discuss the issues in full.
On 5th October, 1993 the Union concerned submitted a claim,
on behalf of the worker concerned, for compensation arising
from the elimination of 7 day continuous working. The
Company is unwilling to deal with an individual claim while a
national claim is being pursued on behalf of all drivers.
The claim of the worker concerned is different to the group
claim in that he worked a 14-day fortnight, including every
second Sunday (his rest day) as compulsory rostered overtime.
All other drivers worked a 13-day fortnight. The worker
received 2.50 day's pay for compulsory work on Sunday and 2
day's pay for a normal Sunday. From 13th April, 1992 the
worker's rest day was changed to every Saturday.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 25th
November, 1993. No agreement was reached. The Company wrote
to the Labour Relations Commission on 2nd December, 1993
stating that it was unwilling to deal with an individual
claim while the national claim was being negotiated. The
Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 5th
January, 1994 under Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd February,
1994 in Castlebar.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned worked his rest day every second
Sunday by mutual agreement with the Company. The worker lost
a total of 2.50 day's pay per fortnight since his rest day was
changed to every Saturday. His gross pay per week was
reduced from #320 before 13th April 1992 to #273. His gross
earning per year were as follows:
1990-91 #17,025
1991-92 #16,103
1992-93 #15,867
The 1992-93 figure includes a 4% bonus for O.P.O. (one person
operator) drivers, plus a percentage increase under the terms
of the P.E.S.P..
2. It is normal custom in the Company to compensate drivers
for changes in "rostered boards" and the worker concerned
should be compensated in a similar manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reduction in earnings of the worker concerned arises
from the elimination of the 7 day continuous working. The
change in driving hours regulations was implemented by
officials in the Department of Tourism, Transport and
Communications. The worker concerned is no different to many
other drivers in the Company, for whom 7 day working was
normal prior to 13th April, 1992.
2. The Company cannot consider an individual claim while a
national claim is being negotiated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties. It is clear that it was a contractual condition of
employment that the worker worked every second Sunday (his rest
day). It is also clear that, in fact, he worked every Sunday by
mutual agreement. The unilateral changing of the worker's rest
day, albeit to comply with directions from the Department of
Tourism, Transport and Communications, by Bus Eireann caused a
considerable loss to the worker.
While acknowledging some validity in the Union's claim that the
worker's case is unique compared with the national claim for bus
drivers arising as a result of the adherence to the driving hours
regulations, the Court could not agree that any settlement that
might be made in this case would not affect or be used as a
precedent in the national discussions. The Court, therefore,
recommends that consideration of this case be deferred until
finality is reached in the national discussions.
The Court is concerned at the long delay in complying with Labour
Court Recommendation CD92432 and urges the parties to bring these
discussions to finality as soon as possible, as the long delay is
not conducive to the creation of a peaceful industrial relations
climate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th April, 1994. ______________________
C.O'N./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.