FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal by the Union Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. RC860/97
BACKGROUND:
2. Since, 1986, following the implementation of one person operated (OPO) buses and the conductor grade being declared redundant, blocks of drivers' staff numbers, by agreement between the parties, were retained for conductors who had opted for driving duties but who could not be trained immediately. When they were trained, they would be allocated one of those numbers. This had the effect of giving greater seniority to ex-conductors over drivers recruited from outside, although both could come out of training school at the same time.
This arrangement ended by agreement in December, 1996. Around that time and subsequently, the Company through its Human Resources Manager, was engaged in discussions with the remaining 50 conductors with a view to transferring those who wished to do so to driver duties. Of the 50, 4 opted for driving duties. As part of those discussions, the Company representative offered a package which included the retention of their staff number in line with the previous agreement. The Company representative stated that he had erred in making such an offer as he was not party to the negotiations which terminated the previous arrangement. This presented both sides with a difficulty in that the four individuals had accepted the staff numbers arrangement, on the basis of seniority, and wished to retain that arrangement, and all four are members of the Unions represented at the negotiations. On the other hand the pressure to terminate the arrangement had come from other drivers who felt it was not reasonable to maintain it, and these drivers (the majority of the driving category), had through their Unions demanded that the agreement be honoured.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 13th January, 1998 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
" For reasons set out in the conclusion above I recommend
1. The terms of the Company/Unions' agreement of November, 1996, to be applied to conductors transferring to driver duties after 31st December, 1996, and in particular to the conductors/drivers in the case. As a result they are to be placed at the point in the seniority lists which would have been correct if the agreement had been applied to them.
2. In recognition of their circumstances and in anticipation of any loss of earnings which might arise in the future, I recommend payment of £3,500 to each of the four people concerned. This payment to be in full and final settlement of any claims, against the Company by those involved relating to this matter, now and in the future."
The Recommendation was accepted by three workers. On the 24th February, 1998, the Union, on behalf of the fourth worker, appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 6th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker concerned had numerous private meetings with Management and received categoric assurances in relation to his senior driver number. It was on this basis that he accepted the driver position.
2. The agreement of 1996 reached between the Unions and the Company regarding senior numbers was not implemented. The Company alone was in control of the allocation of the numbers.
3. The Company never intended to implement the agreement given the letter that was given to the worker guaranteeing him his senior number as late as 24th February, 1997 (details supplied to the Court).
4. Some twenty months later the Company confirmed by letter the worker's appointment to the driving grade, placing him at a level of seniority appropriate to the very number that is presently in dispute.
5. Given all the circumstances it is only fair that the worker be awarded his senior number.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. When the Human Resources Manager interviewed the remaining conductors he was not aware that the block of senior drivers staff numbers had been discontinued and agreed with the four conductors that, on conversion to driver posts, they would be paid compensation and be each allocated one of the senior driver numbers.
2. It is unfortunate that because of a particular series of events, the problems over the seniority of the four conductors developed. The Human Resources Manager was directly involved in reaching agreements with the Union (on drivers' staff numbers reserved for conductors who agreed to covert to OPO driver) in his capacity as Industrial Relations Manager. He then moved to become Area Manager and it was while he was in this line management post that it was agreed centrally that the senior numbers would not be retained after 1st January, 1997, because, at the time, presumption was made that there would have been full OPO operation by that time in any event. This did not happen, and as it transpired, individual agreements were made with the ex-conductors to allocate them staff numbers that had been discontinued at the request of the Unions.
3. The Company considers that the Rights Commissioner dealt with the problem in a fair and equitable manner. It was accepted by three of the workers and the Company requests the Court to recommend that it be accepted by the driver concerned.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions finds that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is the most appropriate way to resolve this issue. The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal by the Union.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th November, 1998______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.