FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Compensation - extension of yard (Roxboro), (2) non advertising of post, (3) upgrade of worker to the fourth point on incremental scale, (4) shunters claim for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of Engineering Operatives employed at the Company's maintenance garage located at Roxboro Road, Limerick.
There are four issues in dispute.
1. Payment of compensation as a result of the extension of the Bus garage yard.
2. The non-advertising of an internal vacancy.
3. The upgrading of a worker to the fourth point on the incremental payscale.
4. Payment of compensation for loss of earnings in respect of three workers engaged in shunting duties.
Payment of compensation as a result of the extension of the bus garage yard.
The Union states that the Company's decision to change the layout of the bus parking lanes at Roxboro garage has resulted in an increased workload for its members as they are required to shunt an additional fifteen buses a night over a much wider area. The Union is seeking compensation for this extra workload. The Company states that the extension of the yard was necessary from a Health and Safety point of view. It maintains that there is no justification for the payment of compensation to the workers concerned.
The non advertising of an internal vacancy.
The Union maintains that when a position becomes vacant it is advertised internally. If the post cannot be filled internally it is then filled by external recruitment. The Union states that the Company has not advertised and filled a vacant post as a permanent position. The Company states that it is not normal practice to advertise base-grade positions internally. These positions are filled by external recruitment.
The upgrading of a worker to the fourth point on the incremental pay scale.
The Union maintains that the worker concerned was treated unfairly by the Company as two other operatives have been upgraded. The worker concerned carries out the same duties as one of the operatives. The Company states that the worker concerned is paid in accordance with his conditions of employment.
Payment of compensation for loss of earnings in respect of three workers engaged in shunting duties.
The Union states that under the terms of an agreement entered into in 1999, the workers concerned were guaranteed seven hours overtime per week. The workers concerned were denied the opportunity of earning overtime and they should be compensated. The Company states that in June, 2000, twelve months after the implementation of the 1999 agreement a review of earnings was carried out. Two of the workers concerned were identified as having suffered a loss of earnings and they were compensated, the third worker did not incur a loss.
The issues were referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of December, 2003.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned should be compensated for the extra workload as a result of the extension of the garage yard.
2. It is unacceptable to members that the Company did not internally advertise and fill the vacant post as a permanent position as it reduces manning levels without agreement.
3. The worker concerned was treated unfairly by the Company. He should be upgraded to the fourth point on the incremental scale.
4. The three workers concerned were denied the opportunity of earning overtime. They should receive full compensation for the loss of earnings as a result of the Company's failure to adhere to agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification to pay compensation to the workers concerned.
2. It is not normal practice to advertise base grade positions internally. The positions are filled by external recruitment.
3. The worker concerned is paid in accordance with his conditions of employment. There were special factors attached to the two operatives who were upgraded.
4. Following the implementation of the 1999 agreement a review of earnings was carried out., Two of the workers concerned were identified as having suffered a loss of earnings and were compensated. The third worker did not suffer a loss.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the claims put before it. Both sides agree that it is the norm for such claims to be dealt with through the Bus Eireann Joint Industrial Relations Forum, however, as the Union attempted to impose a precondition, which was unacceptable to the Forum, it was unable to process them.
The Court recommends that in accordance with the agreed Framework for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, these claims should be referred to the Forum without precondition. The Court accepts that this is the most appropriate way for the claims to be processed, accordingly, the Court will not make a recommendation on the issues before it, unless jointly referred in accordance with these provisions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th January, 2004______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.