FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS ATHA CLIATH - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment to inspectors for one day stoppages.
BACKGROUND:
2. During February/March, 2000, drivers in Bus Atha Cliath held a number of one day and two day stoppages in the course of their pay dispute. The stoppages resulted in six day's service being lost.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for overtime payment for rest-days on which supervisors were due to be rostered but because of the drivers' dispute no buses operated. The Unions argue that the supervisors operate a system of self cover and had an expectation to be rostered for the rest-days in question.
The Company rejects the claim. Its position is that the Unions were informed prior to the first one day strike that the supervisors would not be required to work rest-days. The company has indicated that it is prepared to pay overtime to staff associated with this claim in respect of the first day on which the drivers were on strike.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of July, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of October, 2000, the first available date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Inspectors are required to operate a system of self cover and are regularly rostered to work rest-days without being consulted. It is unacceptable for the Company in this situation not to roster staff and at the same time expect staff to make themselves available for work if the strike is averted.
2. The inspectors were penalised financially due to a series of work stoppages by the drivers. The current agreement with the Company provides for one early supervisory duty to be deleted at the Company's discretion. However, during the industrial action which took place the Company failed to cover any rest-day working and informed staff to check with their place of work as to the status of the Industrial Action.
3. The Unions' are seeking that the inspectors be reimbursed for the financial loss suffered due to circumstances outside of their control.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company requires certain grades of employees, including supervisors, to work rest-days from time to time to cover instances when there are staff shortages, work loads increase, etc.
2. With a strike by drivers due on the 15th of February, 2000, the Company, with no buses due on the road, informed the Unions that rest-days for supervisors would not be required. Notices were displayed in garages to this effect.
3. In one location, supervisors did attend on the 15th of February, 2000, while no work was available the Company undertook to pay the overtime to the individuals.
4. It is the Company's view that having taken into account all the facts and the unique situation that pertained at the time the Court should reject the claim by the Trade Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company is prepared to pay overtime to all staff associated with this claim in respect of the first day on which drivers were on strike. With regard to the remaining days, it is noted that Inspectors were not rostered for overtime.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company's offer of payment in respect of the 15th of February 2000 be accepted in settlement of the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th October, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.