FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC 31/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who is employed as an engineering operative at the Monaghan depot. He was not rostered for duty on the October, Bank Holiday in 1995. The Union maintained that numerous buses operated out of the depot on that day which needed refuelling/cleaning and that the worker concerned was deprived of this work. The Union claimed that the worker should be paid for the Bank Holiday in question. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 12th August 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"On the basis of the aforementioned information the Union have not justified a substantial case that the worker should be rostered for duty on Public Holidays.
In any event, there are no grounds whatsoever why he should be paid for the October, 1995 Bank Holiday, when he was not in attendance on that date and I therefore recommend that his claim fails".
On the 16th August, 1996 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Dundalk on the 23rd October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the day in question due to the non rostering of the claimant a number of bus drivers had to fuel and clean their own vehicles.
2. The October Bank Holiday weekend is, at the Company's own admission, their busiest weekend of the year. The Company does not refute the fact that bus drivers engaged in work which was the sole preserve of the claimant.
3. On previous occasions as the demand was required to be met, the Company rostered the claimant for work on Public Holidays.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was flawed insofar as he made a recommendation based on the rostering of the claimant for all other Public Holidays. The Union's claim is, simply, that the worker should have been rostered on the October Bank Holiday due to a demand for his services.
5. The Company treated the worker unfairly by denying him work in the hope that drivers would perform his duties. Only the goodwill of drivers ensured continuity of services.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant worked a five day week. On the Public Holiday he was afforded a paid off day as per the Holidays (Employers) Act, 1973. He suffered no loss and was treated in the same way as similarly graded staff.
2. Passenger services on the Bank Holiday Monday were similar to normal Sunday travel patterns. Services operating Dublin/Letterkenny, stopping at Monaghan did not, in general, receive any additional fuelling/washing. No complaints were received from drivers in this regard. Worker coverage arrangements for Sundays/Public Holidays were similar which means that normally, like Sundays, the worker's services were not required for a Public Holiday.
3. The worker has only been rostered for two Public Holidays since 1991. Public Holiday arrangements for garage staff is at the discretion of local Management.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as raised in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that the case is specifically in relation to the Public Holiday in October 1995. It is the view of the Court that the rostering of staff on the Public Holiday is at the discretion of the Company.
The Court finds grounds have not been put forward to justify payment for the day being made to the claimant.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
21st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.