FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged breach of agreement on One-Person-Operator (O.P.O.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute has its origins in Labour Court Recommendation (LCR) No. 9901 which is the recommendation covering the introduction of one-person-operator (O.P.O.) drivers. Previously all buses were two-person-operation (T.P.O.), driver and conductor.
Changing to O.P.O was a slow process and the Company decided that a number of routes would remain T.P.O., including route 33 (Skerries) where the driver concerned worked. There were 13 of these routes in all and they operated with a mixture of O.P.O. and T.P.O. The Company launched two productivity plans, in 1988 and 1990, to speed up the conversion to O.P.O The 1990 plan contained a survey as to the intention of T.P.O. staff and the worker filled in his option form as wishing to remain T.P.O. It was necessary for T.P.O. drivers and conductors to be matched on an on-going basis, and a once-off payment of £500 was made to staff in consideration of changes of rota for matching of crews as required.
On route 33 there were three T.P.O. drivers and conductors, including the worker concerned (staff no. 705). When one conductor took voluntary severance, the Union claims that the district manager approached the worker concerned in an effort to persuade him to convert to O.P.O. The worker claims that he told the district manager that he wished to remain T.P.O. but would try O.P.O. "only on a trial basis". The Company maintains that when the senior driver (staff no. 613) decided to remain T.P.O., the worker concerned opted for O.P.O. As a result he was paid a 33 1/3% bonus which was given to all staff who opted for O.P.O. and was marked in on the O.P.O. vacancy. (In 1993, in order to achieve 100% conversion to O.P.O. the Company introduced lump sum payments for T.P.O. staff to convert. These terms were further enhanced in December, 1995). The Union denies that the worker surrendered his T.P.O. status. It also claims that he was unhappy with his O.P.O. duties and was looking for T.P.O. duties, which he succeeded in attaining in Skerries in 1993/1994. He remained T.P.O. until March, 1997, when the conductor he worked with availed of the voluntary severance option. In May, 1994, the Union referred his case to the O.P.O./T.P.O. Tribunal set up in accordance with LCR 9901. A number of Tribunal meetings took place and at a final meeting on 3rd March, 1997, the Tribunal awarded the worker a £3,000 settlement. The recommendation was unacceptable to the worker and the Union claims that it is a breach of the agreement on O.P.O.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 29th May, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st July, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker denies that he told the Company that he would convert to O.P.O. The conductor who worked with him was present at the meeting when he said he would try it "on a trial basis only" and confirms the conversation. The third driver in Skerries, staff no. 946, who was the least senior of the three, was willing to convert to O.P.O. but gave first choice to the worker concerned on a seniority basis. As driver no. 946 was willing to convert to O.P.O. status there was no need for the worker concerned to do so. The worker only took on O.P.O. duties from 1990-1993/1994 because the nearest T.P.O. duties would have necessitated him returning to Summerhill Garage, a round trip of 40 miles per day.
2. The worker did not attempt to revert to T.P.O. status when the Company introduced lump sums in 1993 for converting to O.P.O. He had not given up his T.P.O. status in the first place. The Union had already raised the issue of his T.P.O. status in 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the O.P.O. vacancy arose in September, 1990, the most senior driver refused it. The district manager offered the position to the worker concerned, who accepted it. The district manager made no reference to it being on a trial basis and it was accepted by the worker on a permanent basis. The driver worked as an O.P.O. from 1990-1993 with no problems and it was only when the Company introduced lump sums for conversion to O.P.O. that a number of cases of drivers (including the worker concerned) claiming T.P.O. status arose. The Company had no doubts about the worker being O.P.O. and, therefore, he did not qualify for any compensation.
2. The Tribunal's decision is binding under LCR 9901 and is not in breach of the O.P.O. agreement. The Company only agreed to the payments recommended by the Tribunal on the basis that they were once-off and would be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
It would appear from the evidence presented to the Court that information in relation to the non-payment of the O.P.O. allowance of 33 1/3% to the claimant, and the fact that he was allowed to switch back to T.P.O., may not have been before the Tribunal when making its decision.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the issue be re-heard by the Tribunal, with all of the information before the Court being presented, and that the decision of the Tribunal be final.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th August, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.