FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC85/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposed rationalisation of its Galway/Carraroe/ Lettermullen service. It specifically concerns the worker's objection to the new roster which, he claims, will inconvenience him as a result of later finishing times. The worker's current and proposed rosters are as follows:-
At present the worker's hours of duty are:
Monday/Friday 06.35 to 16.45
Breaks 09.00 to 09.30 and 13.10 to 14.15
Saturday 09.55 to 17.25
Break 13.10 to 14.15
The proposed hours of duty are:
Monday/Friday School periods 07.00 to 17.30
Breaks 09.15 to 11.00 and 14.55 to 15.25
Saturday and Monday/Friday (non-school periods) 07.00 to 18.00
Breaks 09.15 to 11.00 and 14.55 to 16.05
The Company claims that the worker will gain an extra £545 per annum from the new roster.
A second issue concerns the worker's reluctance to transport school children. The driver had a number of difficulties with second-level pupils on various school runs operated by him. Following complaints by the driver, the run was contracted-out to a private operator. The Company's proposed roster will involve the transport of school-children again.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in May, 1996, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was then referred to a Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 17th July, 1996. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I therefore recommend that both the worker and the Union should accept the Company's proposals for the alterations in relation to their Galway/Carraroe/Lettermullen services".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 20th September, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 1996 in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been operating the Galway/Carraroe/Lettermullen service for a number of years and is happy with the present roster. If the Company's proposals are implemented it will mean serious inconvenience for him in his personal life. It will mean starting later in the morning and finishing later in the evening. At present his finishing time is 16.45 hours. With the new roster he will finish at either 17.30 hours or 18.00 hours. His morning break will be 40 minutes longer which he does not want. He will be working extra hours for the extra £545 per annum.
2. Other drivers, apart from the worker concerned, had problems with school-children. The cause of the problem was buses arriving up to 40 minutes late and being overcrowded. The private contractor's bus was always on time. The Company did nothing to discipline the disruptive school-children. The worker's present job has changed considerably from when he started, and was not what he applied for. He would not apply for it now.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the rationalisation is to upgrade the level of service on the route by making better use of the resources - both drivers and vehicles. The worker will gain an extra £545 per annum. He will continue to qualify for 1 meal allowance per day from Monday to Friday, and will get an extra meal allowance on Saturdays and all days during non-school periods. The proposals comply fully with legal requirements in relation to driving hours and rest-period regulations.
2. The operation of the school's transport scheme is a major part of the Company's total business. Individual drivers cannot be allowed to dictate whether or not they will carry school-children who are eligible under the scheme.
DECISION:
The Court, having fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant amendment of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The Court, accordingly, upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
6th December, 1996______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.