FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VEOLIA TRANSPORT DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Shortening of Driver's Maximum Duty Spread.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the maximum driver duty spread which was raised directly in relation to the A1 driver duties at the time of the opening of the A1 line extension.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level 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 9th March, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th July 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Unless management agreed to the introduction of 14 additional rest days per annum the Union was not prepared to recommend acceptance of the proposals worked out through the facilitated process agreed between the parties
2. The Union found aspects of the proposals worked out in the facilitated process unclear or ill-defined and various aspects of others unacceptable. It sought changes to these to reflect its concerns on these matters.
3. The Union does not have a mandate to discuss some of the issues that were tabled as part of the facilitated discussions..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposals that emerged through the facilitated process are fair and reasonable and should be accepted.
2 There is a significant cost associated with those proposals which runs to in excess of €500,000. There is no scope for the Company to agree to any additional costs over and above those already committed to through the facilitated process
3. The proposals that emerged from the facilitated process must be accepted before the end of August 2012, otherwise the proposals fall and are no longer available for consideration by the parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that considerable progress was made in the course of the discussions between the parties that were facilitated by Ms Janet Hughes. The Court recommends that the outcome of those discussions be accepted by both sides in settlement of the current dispute subject to further discussions on the following issues: -
Roster Visibility
The Court notes that Management has made an offer on the introduction, subject to a level of flexibility outlined to the Court, of a 20 week roster with clear visibility against agreed criteria. On the basis of the clarifications and discussions that took place in the course of the Hearing into this matter the Court recommends that the parties engage with a view to agreeing a framework to give effect to this proposal.
Annual Leave
The Court recommends that the union accept the general principle that annual leave will be taken in the leave year in which the entitlement is accrued. The Court further recommends that the parties enter into discussions with a view to agreeing a transparent and fair system for the allocation of annual leave. The Court further recommends that annual leave be taken in the following blocks; a two week break between the start of May and the end of September; a one week break, to be taken as a block, between either January and May or between October and December each year; the 5 remaining days to be taken in flexible manner over the entire leave year taking into account the needs of the individual and the requirements of the Company. All staff to retain three days to be taken at Christmas time in accordance with current practice.
Late Grid
The Court notes that both sides are committed to fairness and transparency in the allocation of rosters and roster duties within the company. Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties agree a transparent and fair system for allocating such rosters and duties. Talks should commence immediately and be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this recommendation. Failing agreement between the parties the matter should be referred to an agreed third party for arbitration on the issues outstanding.
Preferential Depot Allocation
The Court notes that the parties have agreed the wording on this matter contained in the proposals facilitated by Ms Janet Hughes. Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties recommit to these proposals on those terms.
Roster Changes
The Court notes that the parties disagree on the method by which roster changes are introduced. The Court recommends that the parties engage with a view to reaching an agreement on this matter. Talks should commence immediately and be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this recommendation. Should the parties fail to reach agreement the matter should be referred to an agreed arbitrator for a binding decision on any issues that remain outstanding.
Roster finish times prior to the commencement of rest periods
The Court recommends that the parties engage in discussions regarding the commencement and finish times of duties leading into and out of rostered rest periods with a view to agreeing a fair and equitable arrangement in line with standard practice in this area. Should the parties fail to reach agreement within four weeks of the date of this recommendation the matter should be referred to an agreed third party for arbitration on any outstanding issues.
Additional Rest Days
The Court recommends that the Union accept the proposals on this issue that emerged in the course of the facilitated talks. The Court further recommends that this matter be revisited by the parties in the final quarter of 2014 in the context of the then prevailing economic and financial circumstances of the within which the Service operates.
Cost Increasing Claims
The Court recommends that parties accept this recommendation together with the proposals that emerged from the facilitated discussions in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims. The Court also recommends that no further cost increasing claims be made or pursued against the Company until September 2014. Should the parties reach agreement on all of the issues referred to in this recommendation before 31stAugust 2012 the Company should (a) commit to introducing the first phase of the additional rest days in October of this year as provided for in the facilitated agreement and (b) commit to retaining the five temporary workers in employment and converting them to full time permanent status as outlined to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st August, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.