Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93665 Case Number: LCR14336 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
1. Payment for pay lost during strike. 2. Payment for suspended staff. 3. Loss of tokens as a result of official dispute and suspensions. 4. Conditions regarding conductors who opt to become drivers.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the issues raised by the parties in
their oral and written submissions recommends as follows:
1. Payments for period of suspension and work stoppage.
The Court does not find grounds to warrant payments to
drivers for the period of suspension between 23rd May
and 4th June 1993, or the stoppage of work on 26th and
27th September 1993.
2. Attendance Bonus Scheme.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the employees suspended should not be disqualified
from reckoning the days of suspension for the purpose of
the attendance bonus scheme.
3. Retention of Vacancies for Conductors.
It is the view of the court that where compensation has
been paid for conversion to O.P.O. there are no grounds
to warrant retention of an entitlement to return to
conducting duties.
In this context the Court notes the Company's assurance
that conductors in such cases not being found suitable
for driving will be guaranteed alternative positions and
where compensation has not been paid the conductor
converting to driving will not lose his/her entitlement
to revert to conductor status if found to be unsuitable
during the probationary period.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93665 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14336
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. 1. Payment for pay lost during strike.
2. Payment for suspended staff.
3. Loss of tokens as a result of official dispute and
suspensions.
4. Conditions regarding conductors who opt to become
drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The issues have arisen from the dispute that emanates
from the introduction of the Sector 7 quality
corridor/mini-bus operations by the Company. The dispute has
been the subject of three previous Labour Court
Recommendations, LCR14079, LCR14111 and LCR14220. Labour
Court Recommendation LCR14079 stated:-
"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.
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 formalities."
The Unions state that the Company implemented the Sector 7
review without their agreement and it was because of this
that workers refused to operate the Quality corridor. The
Company suspended 70 drivers and 1 conductor in the Phibsboro
depot and 2 drivers in the Conyngham Road depot between 23rd
May and 4th June, 1993 inclusive.
It was agreed to defer the implementation date from the 17th
to the 23rd May, 1993, in order to allow discussions to take
place.
2. A breakdown in negotiations between the parties
regarding the mini-bus replacement of large buses led to the
strike on 26th and 27th September, 1993. Again, the Unions
state that agreement had not been reached between the parties
despite a number of conciliation conferences with the Labour
Relations Commission in the previous week.
3. The Company operates an attendance bonus scheme in the
form of tokens awarded over a one year period to workers who
qualify within certain rules (details supplied to the Court).
One of the rules relates to leave:
"Compassionate leave, jury service, Trade Union leave,
normal authorised leave and suspensions will not count
as non-attendance."
The Company refused to give tokens to the workers involved in
the suspension form 23rd May to 4th June, 1993, and the
strike of 26th/27th September, 1993, which it regarded as
unauthorised leave. The Unions state that the loss of tokens
imposed by the Company is not within the spirit of the
scheme.
4. In early 1993 the Company put proposals to the remaining
two-person-operators (TPO) to convert to one-person-operator
(OPO). One of these proposals involved compensation of
#9,000. One option was for conductors to become drivers.
The Unions state that there is always a 12 month trial period
in case a conductor is not suited to driving. If so, he/she
can revert to conductor duties. The Company states that any
conductor who accepted the compensation bonus agreed that
he/she could not revert to conductor duties. The Unions
state that they never agreed to this.
The various disputes were discussed at a conciliation
conference with the Labour Relations Commission on 22nd
November, 1993, but no agreement was reached. Both parties
agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on 26th
November, 1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 15th December, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The official strike on 26th and 27th September, 1993,
was a result of the Company's refusal to discuss the
implications of the implementation of the mini-bus
replacement of large buses. Labour Court Recommendations
LCR14079 and LCR14111 state that if the parties failed to
reach agreement on any issue a new hearing would be arranged.
Agreement had not been reached on the issue of the mini-bus
but the Company went ahead regardless. The Unions were left
with no option but to go on strike.
2. The suspension of the drivers from 23rd May to 4th June,
1993, was a result of the drivers' refusal to operate the
quality corridor. Again, this was because no agreement had
been reached between the parties. Despite this the Company
implemented the quality corridor.
3. The Company's agreement on the attendance bonus scheme
states that suspensions will not count as non-attendance. It
was also agreed that only unofficial strikes would lead to a
loss of tokens. The strike on 26th/27th September, 1993, was
an official strike. It is not in the spirit of the agreement
to penalise workers with a loss of token, particularly on top
of a loss of pay.
4. The current national agreement states that where a
conductor has converted to driving there is a probationary
period of 12 months. A conductor who does not make the grade
as a driver can revert back to conducting and retain his/her
seniority rights. This agreement still stands and there was
never any intention of abolishing it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions' decision to strike was a freely taken one.
The Company did everything possible to avoid a disruption,
including attending conciliation conferences and Labour Court
hearings. The Company cannot afford to pay workers for the
two days of the strike as it lost considerable money because
of it.
2. The same principle applies to the Unions' claim for the
workers suspended from 23rd May to 4th June, 1993. The
workers' refusal to operate the quality corridor resulted in
serious disruption to services and a loss of revenue for the
Company.
3. The attendance bonus scheme costs the Company
considerable money each year. All drivers in the Phibsboro
garage were given 150 tokens to implement the quality
corridor. Workers cannot expect to get a bonus if they are
on strike or suspended from work.
4. Conductors who accepted the compensation package of
#9,000 to convert to driving did so with the knowledge that,
if they failed to make the grade as drivers, they could not
revert to conducting duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the issues raised by the parties in
their oral and written submissions recommends as follows:
1. Payments for period of suspension and work stoppage.
The Court does not find grounds to warrant payments to
drivers for the period of suspension between 23rd May
and 4th June 1993, or the stoppage of work on 26th and
27th September 1993.
2. Attendance Bonus Scheme.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the employees suspended should not be disqualified
from reckoning the days of suspension for the purpose of
the attendance bonus scheme.
3. Retention of Vacancies for Conductors.
It is the view of the court that where compensation has
been paid for conversion to O.P.O. there are no grounds
to warrant retention of an entitlement to return to
conducting duties.
In this context the Court notes the Company's assurance
that conductors in such cases not being found suitable
for driving will be guaranteed alternative positions and
where compensation has not been paid the conductor
converting to driving will not lose his/her entitlement
to revert to conductor status if found to be unsuitable
during the probationary period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th February, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O.N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.