FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Various issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a part-time bus driver on a school transport route and commenced employment in 1979. She operated the primary route no. 249 and post-primary route no. 27. In February, 2009, the worker was informed that her school route was being altered to allow for the inclusion of an additional eligible primary school pupil. She operated the route for one day but then informed the Company that she was unwilling to operate it again with only one pupil at her last drop-off. The Company's case is that although the worker gave a commitment to drive the route under protest this did not happen on certain occasions. As a result the Company stopped payment of wages on a number of occasions. The worker was called to a disciplinary hearing on the 30th April, 2009, but, in the event, the Company did not discipline her or impose any penalty on the understanding that she would operate as per timetable in the future. The worker's case is that she wanted to have a CCTV camera installed on her bus and an acknowledgement that her disciplinary record was clean.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 5th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th April, 2010. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to an incident which occurred it has been well known that the worker did not want to be left on her own with a single child and that she wanted to have a CCTV camera installed.
2. Following the disciplinary hearing the Company acknowledged that the worker had not been sanctioned in any way.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The School Transport Scheme is administered by the Company on behalf of the Department of Education & Science, subject to their requirements and guidelines. The Company could not operate the scheme if a lone pupil could not travel at any point on the journey.
2. The Company adhered to the agreed disciplinary process. It did not issue any disciplinary sanctions against the worker as a result of the meeting on 30th April, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
There were two issues before the Court. The Union on behalf of the claimant withdrew a third issue relating to deduction of wages on 3rd April, 2009.
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and recommends as follows:
Installation of CCTV Camera on the Claimant’s Bus
The Court notes that this issue is the subject of discussions at national level, involving the Department of Education and Children and other interested parties. Consequently, the Court recommends that the issue of the installation of a CCTV Camera on the claimant’s Bus should await the outcome of the conclusion of such discussions. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of her claim.
Claimant’s Employment Record
The claimant sought an acknowledgment that she had a clean record within her employment following a disciplinary meeting held on 30th April, 2009. The Company in its written and oral submission to the Court formally acknowledged it accepted the claimant’s rationale and explanation for events which occurred on 27th March and on 3rd April, 2009, and consequently“the Company neither disciplined nor imposed any penalty on the claimant”.
In such circumstances, the Court fully accepts that the claimant’s employment record contained no disciplinary warnings or sanctions following the meeting on 30th April, 2009.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd April, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.