Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94476 Case Number: LCR14612 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning:- (1) Introduction of feeder services. (2) Compensation for change of route. (3) Sunday roster for temporary drivers.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and finds as follows:-
1. Feeder Buses
The specific arrangements for the introduction of feeder
services were the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation.
These arrangements do not preclude the Company from using
buses for such services particularly where operational
difficulties are perceived.
However, the terms and conditions applicable to the feeder
bus services should apply, until the Company and unions agree
alternative arrangements through the normal industrial
relations procedures.
2. Compensation for Route Change
The issue was referred to the Network Review Tribunal and the
Chairman of the Tribunal found that there was no provision
for payment of compensation under the heading "Compensation
for staff displaced off routes".
In the case before the Court it is clear that staff concerned
do not operate substantially the same routes as heretofore.
In accordance with the Tribunal Chairman's findings
compensation for such circumstances was not provided for
under compensation for staff displaced off routes.
There are reasonable grounds for some compensation payment to
be made in these circumstances. Accordingly it is the view
of the Court that the parties in discussion should seek to
agree a reasonable compensation payment for such
circumstances.
3. Minibus Pay Rates - Sunday Roster
Under the 1992 agreement the parties agreed a rate of pay for
minibus drivers and specified that normal premiums would
apply as per National Agreements. In September, 1993, at the
Labour Court the Company indicated the average basic weekly
pay rate would be #209.01. In its clarification of the pay
rates the Court gave a detailed breakdown of the rate as
follows:-
Basic rate 144.20
O.P.O. Bonus 20% 28.84
Shift rate at 1/6 per week 24.05
------
per week for 3 weeks 197.09
Basic rate 144.20
Sunday Bonus 28.84
Shift rate 19.24
O.P.O. 34.61
------
per week for 2 weeks 226.89
Average weekly payment for five weeks #209.01
The Company in seeking to have their proposals accepted,
presented to the employees an inclusive package of payment,
which included Sunday working and in the case before the
Court created the expectation that the earnings outlined were
achievable on an average over 5 weeks basis. At no time was
it indicated that in the five week period it might occur that
Sunday work would not be available. In all the circumstances
the Court recognises that payment should not be made for work
not carried out. However, the Court considers that the
Company and the Union should explore the possibility of
finding a means by which the five week average as detailed be
applied under the normal rules for calculating payment.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94476 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14612
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:
Dispute concerning:-
(1) Introduction of feeder services.
(2) Compensation for change of route.
(3) Sunday roster for temporary drivers.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 12th July, 1994. As no
agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 15th September,
1994. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 6th October, 1994.
CLAIM (1). INTRODUCTION OF FEEDER SERVICES
BACKGROUND:
Irish Rail has introduced a new suburban rail service running from
Kildare to Dublin Heuston (The Arrow Service). The Company has an
agreement with Dublin Bus to provide a feeder service to
Clondalkin railway station (Routes 193, 194). Dublin Bus and the
Unions cannot agree on the type of bus to be used to operate these
feeder services. The Company proposes using minibuses. The
Unions are seeking large capacity buses for the routes.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Labour Court (in LCR 9901) clearly addressed all
eventualities arising from the introduction of one person
operated buses, and specifically designated that feeder
services be operated by large capacity single deck buses.
The drivers of these buses receive a higher rate of pay than
minibus drivers.
2. The Union cannot accept the Company's argument that a minibus
be used on this feeder service because of the structural
design of the entrance to the train station. If this is so
the Company must pay the appropriate feeder bus basic rate
without precedent.
N.B.R.U'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Minibuses should not be used to operate feeder services. Such
services are designed to reduce the number of bus passengers
and transfer them to rail services with consequential
reduction in the number of jobs and large capacity single
deck buses.
2. LCR 9901 designated that feeder services be operated by large
single deck buses. The logical by-product of the Company's
proposals to operate minibuses would be a consequential
fall-off of bus passenger numbers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Unions are relying on the conditions relating to the DART
service under LCR 9901 as an argument for operating large
capacity buses on routes 193, 194. There is a difference
between these two services. DART services are servicing a
heavily populated area, carrying approximately 65,000
passengers daily. The passenger carrying capacity of the
Arrow service is approximately 1,200 per day. The provision
of feeder buses on this route is not justified.
2. There is a sharp left-hand turn into the railway entrance
from the public road leading to it making it virtually
impossible to use a large capacity bus. With minibuses such
a turn is possible.
3. When City Imp services were introduced in 1992 the agreement
negotiated provided for the use of these minibuses on new
routes. Routes 193/194 are new routes and do not impinge on
general bus services in the Clondalkin area.
CLAIM 2. COMPENSATION FOR CHANGE OF ROUTE
BACKGROUND
Under an existing agreement, staff who are removed from their
designated route are entitled to compensation. However, the new
Network Review, which introduced changes in nine different
sectors, provides that some routes can be extensively extended and
changed but still retain a substantial part of the existing route.
The Unions maintain that compensation should be paid to workers on
these routes.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Prior to the implementation of Sector 4, the West Tallaght
area was serviced by 13 separate legs provided through 5
individual routes. All the bus workers operating the 5
routes at the time covered a small number of the 13 legs only
and fully enjoyed the benefits applying to the routes that
have a small number of duties. Under the reorganisation of
the routes, workers are now operating routes that bear no
resemblance to the routes they previously worked prior to
Sector 4.
2. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the revised routes
are carrying the same number of passengers as heretofore.
Numbers have increased and the workers concerned must be
compensated in the same manner as workers who come off their
routes.
N.B.R.U'S ARGUMENTS:
1. A new category has arisen from further changes under the
guise of the Network Review which have not been catered for
in the existing agreement. The new route amalgamations arise
from network plans in Sectors 4 and 5 involve routes 50, 50A,
50C, 56A, 21A, 68, 69, 51, and 77. The Network Review did
not take into consideration the effects on staff of route
amalgamation. Precedent has already been established in
Dublin Bus for the payment of compensation to certain staff
on the amalgamation of routes 23 and 24.
2. The Union is not seeking the same level of compensation as
paid to workers displaced off their route, but a lower level
of compensation to reflect the changes foisted on these
staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The implementation of Sectors 4 and 5 in May, 1994 are
similar to the situation in Sector 7 which included the
conversion of part of route 22/22A to City Imp minibus
operation. This route had 33 duties prior to the change.
Following the change the number was reduced to 29. Staff who
lost their duty and moved off the route were compensated.
Staff remaining on a route with an extended terminal point
were not compensated. The Unions accepted that staff not
displaced were not entitled to compensation.
2. The Company's position was upheld when following a hearing of
the Network Review Tribunal in May, 1994 the Chairman decided
that "... there is no provision for payment of compensation
under the heading of "compensation for staff displaced off
routes" in respect of staff continuing to work on routes 50,
50A, 50C, 56A, 68A, 69, 51, and 77 as amended by the Company
proposals".
3. The workers concerned have already received the 3% increase
under the Special Bargaining Clause of PESP, a reduction of
one hour in the working week, 150 tokens to staff as each
Depot introduced changes, a voluntary severance package, loss
of earnings to certain staff. The cost of these benefits was
very substantial. The Company cannot afford to incur further
costs.
CLAIM 3. SUNDAY ROSTER FOR TEMPORARY DRIVERS
BACKGROUND:
In 1992 the parties reached agreement on the rate of pay for City
Imp minibus drivers. At that time regular Sunday working was
included as part of the earnings of drivers. Subsequently the
number of minibus routes was substantially increased and there was
no longer a requirement on some routes for a Sunday service. Some
mini bus drivers are on a permanent Sunday rest-day with
consequent loss of earnings. The Unions are claiming that the
level of earnings agreed in 1992 be maintained.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The rate of pay for minibus drivers averaged over 5 weeks is
#209.01. This rate of pay was agreed by the Company and the
Union. It was confirmed by the Labour Court in a letter of
clarification to the Union in 1993 following the issue of LCR
14220 (which dealt with the introduction of minibuses under
the Sector 7 Network Review).
2. It was the clear understanding of the Union that #209.01 was
the average rate of pay to be applied to minibus drivers.
The Company must uphold the agreement made in good faith and
maintain this level of earnings for the workers concerned.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
1. During negotiations in 1993 the Company repeatedly
highlighted the rates of pay for minibus drivers as #209.01,
averaged over 5 weeks. The Court's letter of clarification
stipulated the rate as being #209.01.
2. The Company is attempting to further reduce the minibus
drivers' rate of pay. If allowed to breach an agreement less
than one year in operation, on such an important issue, there
will be further industrial relations problems in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Because of the small number of City Imp minibus routes, where
services are not required on Sundays, workers will not be
able to float onto other routes and will have to be rostered
offwork that day. There was no commitment given at
negotiations that Sunday premium would be paid in situations
where no Sunday working is involved.
2. Prior to the introduction of minibuses it was the practice to
place new drivers on a static Sunday rest-day and
subsequently progress to routes with Sunday work on a
seniority basis as vacancies arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and finds as follows:-
1. Feeder Buses
The specific arrangements for the introduction of feeder
services were the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation.
These arrangements do not preclude the Company from using
buses for such services particularly where operational
difficulties are perceived.
However, the terms and conditions applicable to the feeder
bus services should apply, until the Company and unions agree
alternative arrangements through the normal industrial
relations procedures.
2. Compensation for Route Change
The issue was referred to the Network Review Tribunal and the
Chairman of the Tribunal found that there was no provision
for payment of compensation under the heading "Compensation
for staff displaced off routes".
In the case before the Court it is clear that staff concerned
do not operate substantially the same routes as heretofore.
In accordance with the Tribunal Chairman's findings
compensation for such circumstances was not provided for
under compensation for staff displaced off routes.
There are reasonable grounds for some compensation payment to
be made in these circumstances. Accordingly it is the view
of the Court that the parties in discussion should seek to
agree a reasonable compensation payment for such
circumstances.
3. Minibus Pay Rates - Sunday Roster
Under the 1992 agreement the parties agreed a rate of pay for
minibus drivers and specified that normal premiums would
apply as per National Agreements. In September, 1993, at the
Labour Court the Company indicated the average basic weekly
pay rate would be #209.01. In its clarification of the pay
rates the Court gave a detailed breakdown of the rate as
follows:-
Basic rate 144.20
O.P.O. Bonus 20% 28.84
Shift rate at 1/6 per week 24.05
------
per week for 3 weeks 197.09
Basic rate 144.20
Sunday Bonus 28.84
Shift rate 19.24
O.P.O. 34.61
------
per week for 2 weeks 226.89
Average weekly payment for five weeks #209.01
The Company in seeking to have their proposals accepted,
presented to the employees an inclusive package of payment,
which included Sunday working and in the case before the
Court created the expectation that the earnings outlined were
achievable on an average over 5 weeks basis. At no time was
it indicated that in the five week period it might occur that
Sunday work would not be available. In all the circumstances
the Court recognises that payment should not be made for work
not carried out. However, the Court considers that the
Company and the Union should explore the possibility of
finding a means by which the five week average as detailed be
applied under the normal rules for calculating payment.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st December, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.