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 & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1). Providing Autofare on the Airlink Service and,
(2). Compensation for operating the route without the system beyond the time recommended by the Court.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Unions is that the Company introduces Autofare to all Dublin bus routes. In September, 1998, the parties were before the Court concerning a viability plan. The issue of Autofare was one of a large number of issues. (Autofare is the system whereby passengers pay a driver the exact bus fare, using coins only, which are put into a "chute".) LCR 15986 issued in October, 1998, and, in it, the Court recommended that Autofare would operate on all routes by March, 1999. A Viability Agreement was concluded in December, 1999.
The Unions' claim is that, post March, 1999, they discovered that the Company did not intend extending Autofare to the Air-Link route i.e. the express coach to and from Dublin Airport - Bus Aras - Heuston Station. The Company maintains that, at the Court hearing in September, it had overlooked the fact that a small number of routes, including the Air-Link, would not be suitable for Autofare.
The issue was referred to the Network Review - (OPO/TPO) - Tribunal in June, 1999, and in December, 1999, it was decided as an interim measure to pay the 11 full-time drivers on Air-Link £750 compensation for not having Autofare, and £200 to each of the spare drivers.
The Unions are seeking the following:
(1) The upholding of LCR 15986 by Dublin Bus and implementation of Auto-Fare on Air-Link.
(2) An interim payment be awarded to all staff not previously included equal to the same amount as per December 7th 1999.
(3) A further weekly payment award for all staff affected until the Air-Link service is Auto-Fared from December 7th until introduction date.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and, failing agreement, was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of February, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both Unions have been seeking Autofare since 1985, one of the main reasons being the number of robbery-related assaults on drivers. Autofare has reduced the number of such assaults by almost 100%.
2. LCR 15986 recommended that Autofare be extended to all routes. The Company claims that it overlooked some routes at the Labour Court hearing, but the Unions did not but the Unions did not overlook the issue.
3. All drivers who work the Air-Link route should be compensated.
4. The Company has repeatedly promised the Unions various alternative arrangements e.g. change facilities, automatic vending machines, etc., none of which have appeared.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was the Company's intention that all normal "stage carriage" services would be converted to Autofare, but that a small number of exceptions, including Air-Link, would be made. Unfortunately, these exceptions were overlooked at the Court hearing.
2. Air-Link means that bus customers who exit from Dublin Airport will have to have the exact amount of Irish coins. This can obviously cause a problem for foreign visitors. One of the Company's main competitors - Aircoach - does not use Auto-Fare as a means of taking fares, making it a more attractive option for visitors. No known express airport bus service in Ireland or the U.K. operates using Autofare.
3. There are alternative ticket machines located adjacent to the Airlink bus stop in Dublin Airport and Heuston Station that sell Airlink bus tickets.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Strategy for Investment & Competitiveness Agreement was agreed in late 1998, following prolonged and intensive negotiations, a Labour Court investigation and Recommendation, which was then followed by further discussions between the parties.
The agreement which was finally concluded did not provide for any exceptions to the commitment to autofareallroutes. The Court does not accept that the Company can now seek to unilaterally alter the clear terms of that agreement.
The Court, therefore recommends that the route now in dispute be autofared forthwith, unless an alternative non-cash system can be agreed.
In light of the recommendation above, the Court does not recommend any alteration in recommendation of the O.P.O./T.P.O. Tribunal on compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st February, 2000.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.