Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95224 Case Number: LCR14792 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS |
Compensation for loss of overtime for shift mechanics
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and noted the contents of
previous LCR No. 14112 and subsequent letters of clarification the
Court is satisfied that loss of earnings such as now claimed were
covered and accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of
either claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95224 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
AND
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for loss of overtime for shift mechanics
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Unions are claiming compensation for loss of
overtime on behalf of shift mechanics employed by Bus
Atha Cliath. Prior to July, 1993, shift mechanics in
the six Dublin garages worked a three cycle shift
pattern over 4 weeks. This provided 24 hours cover, 7
days a week, with the exception of the Friday day turn
of duty. The practice was that this duty was covered
on overtime by shift mechanics once every four weeks
for each individual. This practice has ceased
following the implementation in July, 1993 of the Craft
Productivity Agreement.
2. The Unions are also claiming compensation for loss of
overtime payment for mechanics who worked the shift
from midnight on Saturday into Sunday morning. These
mechanics were responsible for taking out the "Ghost
Bus"on Sunday morning to pick up drivers for the first
services on Sundays. When the Productivity Agreement
for Engineering Operatives was implemented in April,
1992 a revised work roster was introduced and as a
result an engineering operative became available in
normal work time to drive the "Ghost Bus". The need
for a shift mechanic to cover this duty no longer
exists.
3. The Company rejected the Union's claims. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 9th December, 1994.
As no agreement was possible, the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 30th March, 1995 in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd
May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pattern of the shift roster for mechanics in the
Company is long established. In each of the six
garages in Bus Atha Cliath the mechanics gave coverage
for twenty four hours, seven days a week, all the year
round. The shifts were covered in each garage by four
teams working a rotation cycle in periods of four
weeks. Eighty four shifts covered by four teams
required that each team had to work twenty one shifts
within each four week cycle in order to give full
coverage.
2. The shift coverage on Friday evenings was an essential
part of the maintenance operation in the garages. This
shift working was required to give a back-up service
and to cover for break downs during and after the
evening peak service period. The overtime working on
Friday evenings was not worked on a casual basis but
was rostered as an automatic extension of the normal
shift pattern. The alteration to the long established
shift roster did not result from the loss of business
but resulted from the reorganisation of the maintenance
function by the Company.
3. The Unions' requested the Company to examine the
relationship between the basic craft rate of pay in Bus
Atha Cliath which the Unions had shown had fallen out
of line with craft rates in outside industry. The
Company was at this time, anxious to reduce maintenance
costs and negotiations were entered into to find a
solution which would be amenable to both sides. A
productivity agreement was concluded in June, 1993.
The agreement provided for staff reductions of 39 craft
workers and 23 mechanics.
The productivity agreement funded a 20% increase in pay
for craft workers. The agreement did not state that
the shift pattern would be changed and that the shift
mechanics would be at a financial loss as a result. No
compensation was paid for the change in roster duties
which had been in operation for the past thirty years.
The Court has in the past distinguished between casual
overtime and structured overtime - LCR9907 refers
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has made investments of #10 million per
annum in recent years on fleet replacement. As a
result, the maintenance workload has fallen and the
requirement for overtime has dimished. It also became
necessary to restructure maintenance activities in
order to fully realise the benefits of the fleet
investment programme.
2. The Craft Productivity Agreement negotiated with the
Shopworkers Trade Union Group provided for a
substantial pay increase for craftworkers which was
funded by a reduction in the number of craftworkers
employed and the elimination of overtime. The
agreement did not provide for compensation for loss of
overtime as the savings from the elimination of
overtime was a significant part of the funding for the
pay increase.
3. The issue of compensation for the loss of overtime was
raised at the Labour Court (LCR14112 refers). It was
considered by the Court and in a subsequent
clarification the Court recommended that only overtime
lost as a result of staggered starting times should
qualify for compensation. It was accepted by the Court
that the loss of overtime was used to fund the
substantial pay increases. The Company does not accept
the Union's claim that compensation for the loss of
overtime worked on the twenty first shift and on Sunday
mornings is a sustainable claim.
4. The fleet replacement programme commenced in 1990 after
a gap of five years during when no new vehicles were
purchased. In the three year period prior to the 1993
Craft Agreement, approximately 175 new vehicles were
purchased to replace old vehicles which required
excessive maintenance. As a result, overtime was
reduce by 50%. The trend continued, until virtually
all overtime was eliminated. As a result of the fleet
replacement programme, staff levels which were required
to maintain a much older fleet were no longer required
and had to be revised downwards. This trend would have
resulted in the elimination of Friday overtime for
shift mechanics. Since the conclusion of the Craft
Agreement in July, 1993, overtime and staff numbers
have continued to decline.
5. A once off compensation payment to any individual block
of overtime would in the Company's view be double
compensation. It would have a knock-on effect in other
areas of the Company which would present a severe
funding problem for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and noted the contents of
previous LCR No. 14112 and subsequent letters of clarification the
Court is satisfied that loss of earnings such as now claimed were
covered and accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of
either claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
6th June, 1995 ------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO MR
LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.