Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9617 Case Number: AD9610 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation no. BC 299/95.
Recommendation:
As there appears to be an acceptance of the practice of not
lodging takings immediately on completion of work, the Court in
this case upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
rejects the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9617 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1096
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation no. BC 299/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who is employed by the Company
as a driver in Galway. On the 19th October 1994 an incident
occurred whereby the worker's car was stolen in Eyre Square.
It contained the takings from the worker's duty roster which
he was in the process of lodging at the depot. The culprits
were apprehended by the worker and a fellow employee and
handed over to the Gardai. Some of the money was recovered
but an amount of £84.99 was not accounted for. The Company
claimed that the worker should reimburse it in the amount of
£84.99. The Union contended that the worker was not liable
to pay the money. The dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the
15th December 1995 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"In light of the above my recommendation is that the claim by
the Trade Union should be conceded on a totally once off
basis".
On the 16th January, 1996 the Company appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal in Galway on the 7th February, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A driver is responsible for cash received on the basis
of ticket sales and is afforded a daily time allowance
to lodge such monies. The worker concerned did not
follow the correct procedures when he returned to the
Bus Eireann premises. Instead of depositing the cash
as required he put his takings in his car and drove onto
Eyre Square. The worker parked his car, crossed the
road to engage a colleague in conversation, leaving his
car unlocked with keys in the ignition. It was totally
unprotected.
2. The worker should have cashed in his day's takings
before leaving the Company's premises. He took
unnecessary and unacceptable risks with the Company's
cash culminating in the theft of same.
3. The Rights Commissioner erred in his findings when
he stated that the theft of the car had taken place on
Company property and the driver had not removed "the
evenings takings outside the environ's of CIE." It
appears that the Rights Commissioners' concession of the
Union's claim is based on this misconception. The theft
of the worker's car took place from a public place.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the night in question, due to inclement weather, the
worker concerned went to the garage part of Bus Eireann
where his car was parked and intended driving around to
the opposite side of the premises to lodge the takings
that day. He stopped his car at one of the bus stops to
speak to a fellow driver about changing rosters on the
following day. His ticket box and cash were left under
the seat of his car. Within minutes the car was stolen.
The worker was not negligent in the protection of
Company revenue. His car was stolen purely because it
was available to thieves. The bonus to them was that
cash was transported in the car.
2. The claimant and a colleague apprehended the thieves and
handed them over to the Gardai. It was not possible to
recover all the monies. Subsequently one of the thieves
escaped from custody.
3. The Company's assertion that, as the worker was on the
premises and then left the premises, it was an open
invitation to be robbed, is incomprehensible. Bus
workers are obliged to finish duty in Eyre Square and
return to the garage with cash takings. On away
services busworkers are obliged to keep Company revenue
overnight in their homes.
4. On the issue of leaving the Company premises the worker
was still technically at work. He was still within his
reporting time.
5. In the past the Union has not contested the Company
request that drivers refund monies, where, through
deliberate negligence, cash was stolen. However, in
this instance, the Union cannot accept that the driver
concerned should pay to the Company revenues which were
stolen through the irresponsible actions of others.
DECISION:
As there appears to be an acceptance of the practice of not
lodging takings immediately on completion of work, the Court in
this case upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
rejects the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th February, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D/S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman