Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94189 Case Number: AD9447 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW371/93 concerning compensation for loss of earning for a part-time bus driver.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, that recommendation stands.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94189 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW371/93 concerning compensation for loss of earning for a
part-time bus driver.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates the schools' transport system on
behalf of the Department of Education. It uses a
combination of its own vehicles and contractors. The
claimant was employed as a part-time school bus driver
in the Cavan area. He operated a school bus service
covering Ballinamoney and Maoi National Schools from
May, 1989, until September, 1993.
2. In September, 1993, the driver was informed that he was
required to operate the service to Ballinamoney School
only and that a private contractor was engaged to
provide the Maoi School service. The worker informed
the Company that he was unable to do the route for
serious personal reasons.
3. The worker was replaced on the route and removed from
the payroll. There were various meetings between the
parties but the dispute could not be resolved. The
dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners service
and an investigation took place on 27th January, 1994.
The recommendation as follows was issued on 27th
February, 1994:-
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept the
Company's position in this dispute".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
4. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 8th
June, 1994 in Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was suspended by the Company with pay pending
a resolution of the difficulties. He has received no
payment from the Company since September, 1993 and the
Company has made no serious effort to resolve the
difficulty.
2. The worker has informed the Company that he is willing
to do any route other than the Ballinamoney National
School. The worker's serious personal problem is well
known to the District Manager. He has twenty years'
service with the Company and is entitled to expect more
consideration from his employer.
3. The worker received no prior notice of a change in
schedule while the contractor, a non-employee, had
engaged in extensive negotiations with the Company. A
change in work should have been agreed and notified in
advance. That did not happen in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had received a number of complaints
concerning the driver's route. The complaints were
investigated and found to be true. The routes were
revised as a result and the worker was given a more
manageable route. Under the contract arrangement with
the Department of Education, routes must be reviewed
regularly and adjusted to meet customer requirements.
2. The worker refused to operate the revised services and
effectively abandoned his employment. Every effort was
made to persuade the driver to return to his designated
route (details supplied). The revised working
arrangements carry the same remuneration as the service
previously operated by the driver.
3. The worker declined a switch in duties in September
1993. The Company does not accept that the worker's
personal problem is sufficient reason to refuse to
operate as requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, that recommendation stands.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.