FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAMIEN TANSEY & CO) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Pension entitlement 2. Promotion procedures
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 2 issues in dispute. The worker claims that (a) he is not being given sufficient pensionable service credit and (b) that fair procedures were not followed in regards to promotion. The worker claims that he commenced as a road freight driver with the Company in February, 1960 (the Company says January, 1962. There were a number of areas of dispute regarding dates throughout the hearing).
In 1988/89, the worker was appointed as a Grade A Inspector working on school buses, Grade A being the lowest level for Inspectors. The worker claims that when his predecessor - a Grade B Inspector - retired, the "B" ranking went to another worker who had longer service than the worker concerned. In 1995, 2 new posts were created at Inspector level - a Grade B and a Grade C. The 2 posts were given to 2 workers other than the worker concerned, although he claims that he had longer service than both of them.
The Company's view is that the worker concerned was appointed to the regular staff in March, 1971 and joined the C.I.E. Superannuation scheme (1951) for regular wage staff. However, the Company states that the worker's continuous service date i.e. the date from which his pension benefits are calculated from, is January, 1965.
The dispute was referred by the worker to the Labour Court on the 20th of December, 1999, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of March, 2000 in Sligo.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is sure that his starting date was in February, 1960. Management has changed its mind on a number of occasions as to his date of employment, first saying it was 1968, then changing to 1965. The Company now says its records do not go back further than 1962.
2. It is established custom and practice that those with the longest service would be first considered for promotion. In 1995, when the 2 new posts were created, the worker had longer service than either of the 2 people who were promoted. If the worker had been promoted to Inspector Grade B, he would be on considerably higher wages than he is now. The Company's assertion that Grade B posts were not available to School Inspectors is not true, as the worker's predecessor was Grade B.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's pension benefits have been calculated in accordance with long established practice, and the statutory provisions of the C.I.E. Superannuation Scheme, 1951. The worker's pension benefits will be calculated from January, 1965, although he did not join the regular staff until 1971.
2. In 1987, the one-person-operation of buses (OPO) was introduced. An agreement between the Company and the trade unions provided for the payment of a 33.3% bonus for drivers operating double-deck and large capacity single deck buses. A claim on behalf of the Inspector to restore the differential was subsequently made, but it was clarified by the unions that Inspectors engaged on school transport duties would not be included in the claim. Agreement was reached at the end of 1993. As the worker concerned was engaged full-time on school duties, he could not be involved in the agreement which provides for the 2 new posts in 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties, and recommends as follows in relation to each of the claims presented:
Pension Entitlement.
For reasons which are perfectly understandable having regard to the lapse of time involved, it is not possible to establish with precision the claimant's first year of continuous employment. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the claimant's continuous service should be deemed to have commenced on 1st January, 1963.
Promotion.
Having regard to the agreement concluded between the Company and the relevant Union, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th April, 2000______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.