FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed as a craftsperson and is based in the Harristown Garage. He commenced employment as an apprentice in 1960. In 1964 he was involved in a serious accident and was on sick leave for 2.5 years. He finished his apprenticeship in 1967 and became full time in 1968. In October, 2004, the Company opened a new facility in Harristown and the worker concerned volunteered to transfer from Conyngham Road to Harristown. The worker, like all craft employees, was offered compensation as follows: €1,300, plus €130 per year of service, plus €1,500. The Union's claim is that the worker was left short the €130 per year of service for years 1960-1968, a total of €1,040. The Company's case is that it is custom and practice not to recognise apprenticeship service for the purpose of compensation.
During the discussion on the opening of Harristown it was proposed that the position of shift mechanics be advertised amongst all mechanics transferring to the new location. The Company decided that the fairest solution was to transfer the four existing shift mechanics in Broadstone en bloc to Harristown. The worker concerned had applied for one of these positions. The Company also created two additional two-cycle shifts in Harristown. The Union wanted the position filled on a seniority basis and believed that the worker, who was one of the longest serving craftworkers in the Company, should have been allowed to apply for one of the three-cycle shifts.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 14th of April, 2005, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of July 2005. The worker agrees to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) In relation to the apprenticeship issue, it is the Union's understanding that in the late 1980's and again in 1992 redundancies were offered in Dublin Bus and all service was counted, including service during apprenticeship. The Union is not aware of any agreement that states that apprenticeship service is ignored.
(2) The worker was very upset as he wished to go Harristown as a shift worker, and the Company denied him that opportunity although he is one of the most senior craftspeople in the Company.
(3) The Union believes that the Company did not want to advertise the three-shift positions in case it had to pay compensation to workers who were taken off shift as happened in the Conyngham Road Garage in 1992. The loss of the three-cycle shift to the worker is considerable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (1) The worker was paid the agreed compensation which is in keeping with long-established precedent and practice, and was calculated as time spent as a craftworker (i.e. it did not include his time spent as an apprentice).
(2) As a result of the closure of the Broadstone garage the four shift mechanics were all transferred to Harristown. The Company felt that they were entitled to be facilitated with a similar shift pattern and rate of pay as they currently held. This provided the minimum disruption to existing staff and no craftworkers lost out on shift pay and conditions.
(3) It was agreed that two additional two-cycle shift vacancies would be advertised at Harristown, and the worker concerned was free to apply for these.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows in relation to the two claims presented.
Claim (a) – Calculation of relocation compensation.
On the basis of the information provided to the Court, it is clear that the custom and practice within the employment is to calculate relocation compensation by reference to post-apprenticeship service only.
In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Claim (b) Selection of shift staff.
In the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that the Company acted reasonably in allocating existing shift workers to shift positions in the new location to which they were being compulsorily relocated. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th August, 2005______________________
CON/DHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.