Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9410 Case Number: LCR14348 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Loss of rest-day pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that in the circumstances the Company did not act
unreasonably. The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour
of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14348
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Loss of rest-day pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a driver by Bus Eireann
at its depot in Broadstone. He works a six day week and has a
Saturday rest-day.
Resulting from a directive from the Department of Tourism,
Transport and Communications and as a first step towards full
adherence to the driving hours regulations, all rest-day working
for six day staff was eliminated, with effect from April, 1992.
On Thursday 10th June, 1993 the worker was required to operate a
private hire contract. This entailed transporting the Irish
National Soccer Team, who were based in Monaghan, and who were
returning on 15th June, 1993. To comply with the driving hours
regulations the worker rested on Wednesday 9th June, 1993 and
again on Wednesday 16th June, 1993. He resumed normal duty on
Thursday 17th June, 1993.
A national one day strike took place on Friday 18th June, 1993.
The worker did not report for work. He was not rostered to work
his rest-day on Saturday 19th June, 1993. He commenced annual
leave on Sunday 20th June, 1993.
The Union claims that the worker should have been rostered to work
on 19th June, 1993 and submitted a claim for loss of rest-day pay.
The Company rejected the claim.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. An
invitation to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner was declined by the Company. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 10th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's failure to roster the worker for duty on
Saturday 19th June, 1993, stemmed from its misinterpretation
of the driving hours regulations.
2. The worker is contracted to work a six day week. On the
week in question he was forced to take two rest-days which
resulted in the loss of 1 day's pay. He should be
compensated for his loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Rest-day working for six day staff has been eliminated
as a first step towards full adherence to the driving hours
regulations.
2. If the worker considered that he was eligible to work on
Saturday 19th June, 1993 he should have made contact with the
Schedules Inspector on Friday 18th June 1993, as per normal
procedures. In such an event the Inspector would have
considered his availability in meeting the roster
requirements.
3. Concession of this claim could have serious
repercussions in that a precedent would be created for the
payment of days not worked.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that in the circumstances the Company did not act
unreasonably. The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th February, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.