FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Cost reduction plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed as Engineering Operatives. The dispute relates specifically to the implementation of the Employer's cost reduction plan and a proposal which emerged on foot of a number of conciliation conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. In line with the Company's requirement to cut costs, the proposal sets out an immediate reduction in one duty in each garage, which results in a reduction of 11 night operatives. The proposal was rejected by the Union and agreement could not be reached at local level.The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th May, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argues that Management is demanding a disproportionate contribution to the cost reduction plan from this, the lowest paid group of workers in the Company.
2. The Union further argues that the proposed reduction in headcount will result in an inordinate increase in the level of work to be carried out by the remaining staff.
3. The Union is seeking a compensation payment in recognition of the disproportionate increase in the workload proposed for this group of workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that it has experienced financial difficulty since 2008 and all grades of employees have been affected by the requirement to cut costs in order to save money.
2. The Company asserts that all grade of staff have contributed to the Company's cost reduction plan.
3. The Company maintains that compensation packages on offer to this group of workers are in line with established practice within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
When the matter came before the Court on 2 July 2014 it became apparent that the parties might benefit from a further engagement to try to resolve the issues outstanding. The parties so engaged over a period of seven days and while some progress was made they were not in a position to conclude an agreement. Accordingly the Court was asked to issue a recommendation on the matters in dispute.
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to the dispute the Court recommends that Section 7 of the proposals headed “Compensation” - be amended to include the following additional provision: -
“When the new rosters are implemented as set out in appendix 2 rest nights will be allocated on the basis of seniority. Following this allocation any permanent operatives required to compulsory change their rest nights will be compensated with a compensation payment of €1250. This payment will be a once off payment unique to this agreement and will not be precedent setting.”
Subject to this change the Court recommends that the Union accept Management’s offer in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th August 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.