FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Changes to board arrangements, hours of work and hours away from base.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Complainant is employed as a Bus Driver since 1990 and is based at the Rosslare Depot. In January 2009 negotiations between the Trade Unions and Management took place in order to introduce a new bus service to Dublin Airport. The Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome as it affected his home life / work balance in a negative manner. However, he agreed to work the new board for a short period under protest.
The dispute could not be resolved either at local level nor at the Drivers Change Programme Tribunal and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th May, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hours of work associated with the new board are excessive due to the mandatory breaks. If another more acceptable arrangement cannot be found then the option of a redundancy package should be explored.
2. It is the Union's understanding that the recommendation of the Driver's Change Programme Tribunal is not and has never been binding.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company must schedule the Drivers in line with the demands of passengers for services. If changes were made to alter his roster regarding time off or shorter working hours the effect would be to disturb his colleagues, something the Company could not do.
2. The Company has made every reasonable effort to make the Complainant's board as acceptable to him as possible, it is suggested that he should work his board as arranged until something became available and which was based on his seniority that was more suitable to him.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of the hearing it became clear that there was a substantial disagreement between the parties as to the status of the findings issued by the Chairman of the "Drivers Change Programme Tribunal". The ambiguity around the status of such decisions was partly responsible for this matter finding its way to the Labour Court. The parties should immediately clarify the status of decisions of the Tribunal, so as to bring procedural certainty to the process.
The Court has carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions of both parties in this case. On the evidence presented to it the Court endorses the Decision of the Drivers Change Programme Tribunal issued on 27th July 2009 in respect of this issue.
The Court so Recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th September, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.