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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Change in routes resulting in Loss of Hours and Earnings for three part-time Drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for loss of earnings on behalf of 3 part-time Bus Drivers in the Glenamaddy and Clifden areas in Galway. In August, 2011, the Company posted new operating boards (rosters of duties) for the 3 Drivers resulting in them having different and shorter routes than previous years. As a result the Drivers suffered losses of approximately €105, €60 and €45 respectively (the two parties supplied slightly different figures to the Court). The Union's main concern is that while it accepts that the Company can make changes to routes there was a lack of consultation in this case, resulting in the changes being rushed through. A number of meetings took place at local level but agreement could not be reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th February, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 3 workers have lost a considerable amount of money due to the Company's unilateral decision to change their routes. There was no consultation with them or the Union. The workers have put forward a number of alternative proposals to the Company which could have reduced their loss but all have been rejected. The Company did not follow its own internal procedures in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates the School Transport Service on a contract basis on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. If the Department requests changes to routes, as in this case, the Company is obliged to meet these requirements.
2. The Company was prepared to have the issue dealt with under its Joint Industrial Relations Forum but the Union referred it to the LRC instead. The alternative proposals made by the workers were not practical.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of three Part-Time School Bus Drivers. The Union claimed that the Company changed the drivers operating boards in August 2011 without entering into proper consultation in accordance with the Company’s Grievance and Dispute Procedure, thereby resulting in a loss of earnings for the drivers.
The Company stated that it operates the School Transport Service on a contract basis on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills and changes to routes take place on a regular basis due to various operational reasons. During the Summer 2011 due to a change in Department’s eligibility criteria for pupils a number of changes were necessary which impacted on the routes normally carried out by the three drivers involved in this claim. The Company submitted that it informed the drivers as soon as it was possible to do so and entered into discussions on the matter commencing with a meeting on 26thAugust, 2011, and undertook an examination of the routes to consider proposals submitted by the drivers themselves. The Company told the Court that the Department has indicated that it will be making severe cuts in the budget for the School Transport system, which must be implemented by 2014.
It is accepted by both parties that the Part-Time School Bus Driver’s contract of employment states that if their driving time is reduced their weekly rate of pay will be reduced accordingly subject to the minimum weekly payment of 21 hours.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that due to the peculiarities of this service and the short time period between the Company’s notification of the Department’s pupil transport requirements and the Company’s obligations to the drivers concerned, it is logistically extremely difficult to engage in proper communication prior to the beginning of each school year.
Given the short timeframe involved in this case before the Court concerning three drivers, the Court accepts that it was not possible to adequately address the difficulties which arose within the month of August, 2011.
The Court can foresee that the difficulties which arose in this case may also arise in the future, given the constraints which are likely to be placed by the Department in the near future.
Consequently, the Court is of the view that the procedures laid down in the Company’s Grievance and Disputes Procedure are not appropriate for the Part-Time School Bus Drivers Service. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should enter into discussions on agreeing separate grievance and disputes procedures for the Part-Time School Bus Driver Service to deal with difficulties which may arise when the company requires changing the operating boards. The Court recommends that the procedures should agree a timeframe for completion of any disputes which arise, and should be finalised utilising the services of the Joint Industrial Relations Forum (JIRF) where required. Given the time constraints involved priority should be given by the JIRF to resolving such disputes as they arise.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th February, 2012______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.