Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95134 Case Number: LCR14708 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS |
Disputes concerning spreadover and waiting time.
Recommendation:
3. The Court has given serious consideration to the verbal and
written submissions of the parties. These submissions covered the
history of events since Labour Court Recommendation No. 13346 up
to the present. They also clearly set out the points of dispute
between the parties which are as follows:-
1. The substantive issue: Whether spreadover and waiting
time should be applied to all new drivers following the
one year probationary period as claimed by the Union or
whether the findings of the Chairman of the Joint Forum
should be implemented which is the position of the
Company.
2. The situation of drivers recruited between 1/3/92 and
16/4/92.
3. The situation of drivers recruited subsequent to the
date of implementation of the agreement who were
already employees of Bus Eireann.
4. The perception of the Unions that the agreement is
being used by the Company to reduce potential earnings
of existing drivers by selecting those drivers who were
not in receipt of spreadover and waiting time for
overtime.
FINDINGS
The Court in considering Point 1, 2 and 3, took particular note of
the findings of the Chairman of the Joint Forum and agreed with
his general approach, particularly with reference to the fact that
blame must be shared by each party for their failure to set out in
a clear and unambiguous way the terms of an agreement reached
between them. On the general level of industrial relations in the
Company the Court is disappointed by the level of distrust that
exists between the parties despite the efforts made to improve the
situation in the past. It is the view of the Court that an
Industrial Relations audit is urgently required and we recommend
that both sides agree to the appointment by the Labour Relations
Commission of a suitably qualified person to carry out such an
audit immediately.
The Court also noted that both unions and Management agreed on the
need for a comprehensive plan for the future of the Company and
recommends that discussions commence as early as possible on this
matter.
POINT (1)
The Court recommends that the parties accept the Forum Chairman'
proposals for a period of one year from the date of this
recommendation.
During this year both parties should enter into the urgent
negotiations on productivity that they both agree are essential in
order to ensure the Company's viability in the face of an
increasingly competitive situation. It is possible that the
resulting productivity proposals would include an agreed solution
on the review of the spreadover recommendation in one years time.
POINT (2)
The Court is of the view that the drivers recruited between these
dates should have been excluded from the provisions of the
agreement reached on 15th April, 1992 and so recommends.
POINT (3)
The Court is satisfied that this category of worker should have
been excluded under the terms of the agreement reached on 15th
April, 1992. The Court so recommends.
POINT (4)
On this issue the Court noted that the Management stated in very
clear terms at the hearing that it was Company policy to
distribute overtime in a fair manner at all times. The Court
would suggest that the Company should again notify all local
management of the policy in this regard.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95134 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14708
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Disputes concerning spreadover and waiting time.
BACKGROUND:
2. the Labour Court investigated the dispute on 24th February,
1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has given serious consideration to the verbal and
written submissions of the parties. These submissions covered the
history of events since Labour Court Recommendation No. 13346 up
to the present. They also clearly set out the points of dispute
between the parties which are as follows:-
1. The substantive issue: Whether spreadover and waiting
time should be applied to all new drivers following the
one year probationary period as claimed by the Union or
whether the findings of the Chairman of the Joint Forum
should be implemented which is the position of the
Company.
2. The situation of drivers recruited between 1/3/92 and
16/4/92.
3. The situation of drivers recruited subsequent to the
date of implementation of the agreement who were
already employees of Bus Eireann.
4. The perception of the Unions that the agreement is
being used by the Company to reduce potential earnings
of existing drivers by selecting those drivers who were
not in receipt of spreadover and waiting time for
overtime.
FINDINGS
The Court in considering Point 1, 2 and 3, took particular note of
the findings of the Chairman of the Joint Forum and agreed with
his general approach, particularly with reference to the fact that
blame must be shared by each party for their failure to set out in
a clear and unambiguous way the terms of an agreement reached
between them. On the general level of industrial relations in the
Company the Court is disappointed by the level of distrust that
exists between the parties despite the efforts made to improve the
situation in the past. It is the view of the Court that an
Industrial Relations audit is urgently required and we recommend
that both sides agree to the appointment by the Labour Relations
Commission of a suitably qualified person to carry out such an
audit immediately.
The Court also noted that both unions and Management agreed on the
need for a comprehensive plan for the future of the Company and
recommends that discussions commence as early as possible on this
matter.
POINT (1)
The Court recommends that the parties accept the Forum Chairman'
proposals for a period of one year from the date of this
recommendation.
During this year both parties should enter into the urgent
negotiations on productivity that they both agree are essential in
order to ensure the Company's viability in the face of an
increasingly competitive situation. It is possible that the
resulting productivity proposals would include an agreed solution
on the review of the spreadover recommendation in one years time.
POINT (2)
The Court is of the view that the drivers recruited between these
dates should have been excluded from the provisions of the
agreement reached on 15th April, 1992 and so recommends.
POINT (3)
The Court is satisfied that this category of worker should have
been excluded under the terms of the agreement reached on 15th
April, 1992. The Court so recommends.
POINT (4)
On this issue the Court noted that the Management stated in very
clear terms at the hearing that it was Company policy to
distribute overtime in a fair manner at all times. The Court
would suggest that the Company should again notify all local
management of the policy in this regard.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th March, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F/U.S. --------------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR JEROME FORDE, COURT SECRETARY.