FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Company/Union agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposals under the Strategy for Investment and Competitiveness plan. The proposals have been the subject of negotiation between the Company and the two Unions for almost two years on behalf of traffic grades (the majority of whom are drivers). A facilitator from the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) was involved in the discussions between the parties.
Following numerous discussions in 1998, the proposals were put before the Unions in June, 1998 (a copy of the proposals was supplied to the Court). Although recommended by the Unions' committees, the proposals were rejected in a ballot by a 2 to 1 majority. There are a large number of issues involved - driver flexibility/movement of staff, autofare, working hours, Two Person Operators (TPO)., contracting out of services, rehabilitated staff, staff ratio/summer scheduling, equalisation payments, co-operation payments. There is a total of 2,100 drivers involved, 1,800 bus drivers and 300 mini-bus drivers.
The Company's view is that if its proposals of June, 1998 are not accepted there will be serious financial implications for the Company. The Unions want all the issues mentioned to be addressed, particularly the issue of driver flexibility and the contracting-out of school services. Briefly, the proposals emanating from Conciliation on the main issues are as follows:-
(a)Driver flexibility
As a result of pay scales for new drivers (two 8-point scales, one inclusive of Sunday working and one exclusive) all staff, with the exception of current mini-bus drivers, will drive all bus types irrespective of size and be paid the large capacity rate of pay. Mini-bus drivers who wish to remain on mini-bus work will retain their mini-bus rate of pay.
(b)Autofare
Autofare will be extended to all routes by the end of 1999 with Ringsend, Clontarf and Phibsboro depots converted by the end of 1998.
(c)Working hours
The normal working week will remain at 39 hours with the easement in schedule to 38.02.
(d)Staff ratio/Summer schedule
The staff ratio of 1.5 drivers per duty will be reduced to 1.45 drivers. Summer schedules will be reduced by a maximum of 3 duties per garage.
(e)Equalisation payments
Agreement has been reached for the voluntary buy-out by staff of the pre-74 and pre-78 Sunday equalisation payment in line with their remaining years service with the Company.
(f)Co-operation payment
In return for co-operation with the deal, a lump sum of £500 gross would be paid to staff in December, 1998.
(g)Sub-contracting of schools services
The carriage of school children is usually operated by Universals and Extra Works. The Company's plans for sub-contracting schools services will result in the cancellation of 20 Universal duties and the reduction of 31 Extra Works city-wide.
As agreement could not be reached following the LRC's conciliation conferences, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of September, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of September, 1998.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. If the Company is to remain competitive, it must realise that reliability and frequency of buses are the key areas. There have been many work changes in the last 10 years, with productivity increasing by 57%. Workers have become more flexible and they will not accept any more changes unless these changes are helped by extra funding. In 1987 there was a £16 million subsidy. The figure is now £7 million.
(a)Driver flexibility
Mini-bus drivers should not have to vacate their duties in order to achieve the large capacity rate of pay. All duties paying the large capacity rate should be made available for open marked-in competition under Clause 20 of the National Agreement.
(b)Autofare
Autofare, in conjunction with the safety screens, is the sole reason for the huge reduction in assault incidents. There is no acceptable reason to delay its total implementation until the end of 1999.
(c)Working hours
Following the introduction of the mini-buses, the Labour Court recommended that the working week be reduced by 1 hour. This reduction was paid for in full and should remain at a 37.02 hours per week.
(d)Staff ratio
A ratio of 1.3 drivers per duty will guarantee the necessary flexibility and earning potential to maintain staff morale.
(e)Equalisation payments/Co-operation payment
The amount of money offered by the Company (details supplied to the Court) represents a total of 5 years' advance payment. A minimum of 10 years' payment would be acceptable. The co-operation payment offer of £500 is not acceptable. A £1,000 payment made to the supervisory grades should be offered to the bus workers.
(f)Contracting-out of services
The Company's proposals will mean additional vehicles will be used for transportation of school children. This will have a detrimental effect on road space and will have a significant impact on the potential earnings of the bus workers. There should be further negotiations between the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In December, 1996, the Labour Court issued a recommendation that the parties agree an urgent timetable for negotiations which would take on board the Company deadline of 31st of March, 1997. This did not happen. The Company's financial problems are as serious now as in 1996. The core problem remains the same. The Company is spending more than it is earning. It costs £10 million more to run the business now than it did in 1991, against only £8.3 million in additional revenue. Accumulated losses now amount to £30.5 million.
2. Labour costs account for 60% of total expenditure. A major drain on the Company's cash resources is in paying for third party and employee accidents. The cost of third party claims from 1993-1997 was £36 million.
3. Competition and deregulation are new realities which must be planned for. Two private sector operators have been licensed by the Department of Public Enterprise to provide services in the Dublin area.
4. Part of the Company's strategy is to provide a superior quality bus fleet and service for which it could command a premium. To achieve this it will have to substantially improve the quality of its bus fleet. Over 25% of the present fleet of 950 buses are over 10 years old. Plans to provide 75 new buses in 1996, with 80 new buses in 1997/1998/1999 and 70 in 2000 had to be curtailed.
5. The Company's proposals, had they been accepted, would have resulted in savings of approximately £5.2 million.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully evaluated the written and oral submissions made by the parties in this case.
The dispute comes before the Court at a time when the general business environment in which the Company operates presents both opportunities and threats which have the potential to impact profoundly on its future well-being as a public service enterprise.
The unacceptable effect of escalating traffic volumes in the Company’s operational area means that public service transport must form a central part of any strategy aimed at relieving growing road congestion. This will open up new opportunities for reliable, efficient and cost effective public transport providers. If the Company is to realise its full potential to benefit from these opportunities, it will require capital investment in its fleet and other fixed assets. It will also need a diversity of reliable services designed to meet the requirements of existing and potential passengers.
In parallel with these potentially positive developments, there is a growing trend, influenced largely by the European Union, towards deregulation in the public transport sector. This inevitably involves the requirement to permit some form of competition in hitherto areas of public sector monopoly. The development of these policies will expose the Company to competitive influences which it has not previously experienced.
The Court is satisfied that the current economic and commercial circumstances of Dublin Bus are such as to seriously inhibit its capacity to respond adequately to the emerging opportunities or to meet the emerging challenges. The background to this dispute, and the length and intensity of the negotiations which preceded its reference to the Court, indicates that both Management and Unions accept the need for corrective measures, while disagreeing on the form which those measures should take.
The proposals which emanated from these intensive negotiations, titled
"Strategy for Investment & Competitiveness", did not prove acceptable to the Unions’ members. Yet, in the Court's view, the underlying approach set out in those proposals remains sound and necessary. Nonetheless, the Court believes that in view of the arguments put forward by the Unions, some amendments should be made to the proposals.
The Court, therefore, recommends as follows;
Pay Scale.
The Courts considers that the proposed starting rate does not adequately reflect the duties which new drivers will be expected to undertake. The Court also considers that the proposed scale is unduly long. It is recommended that the first two points of the scale be eliminated and the scale reduced to six points.
Lead- in Payments.
The proposed lead-in lump sum should be increased to £1,000. This lump sum should be paid in full on acceptance of this recommendation, together with the 5% increase retrospective to 30th August 1998.
Autofare.
It is wholly unacceptable that Bus Workers should be exposed to the danger of assault in the course of their work. The Company have a serious duty to take all measures within their power to eliminate this danger. The Autofare system has contributed greatly to the reduction in the incidence of assaults. The fact that this system has not yet been extended to all routes is unacceptable. The Court recommends that the Company revise its target for the extension of this system, and undertakes to have the necessary work completed by end March, 1999.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th October, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.