FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-134288-IR-13.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the Claimant of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-134288-IR-13. The dispute concerns a claim by the worker for the restoration of weekly working hours guaranteed to him on foot of a local agreement concluded in 2007 . At that time he acceded to a request to transfer to an alternative route on condition that he retain his weekly working hours. He claims that his Employer unilaterally reduced his hours of work in 2012 giving rise to a considerable weekly reduction in earnings. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that it has a contractual entitlement to reduce hours of work in line with business requirements.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th October, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"In my view the agreement (though limited- lacking objective measurement criteria) enshrined in the "Framework Procedures for Service Changes" is pre-eminent and therefore I am not in a position to make a recommendation favourable to the Claimant as petitioned. I so recommend".
On the 8th November, 2013 the Union on behalf of its member appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th May, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has acted in breach of the terms of an existing agreement by unilaterally reducing the Worker's weekly hours of work.
2. The explanations advanced by the employer for the reduction in the weekly hours allocated to the route are not well founded.
2. The Worker has suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the reduction in hours and is currently seeking the retrospective restoration of the hours guaranteed to him previously.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the context of intense pressure on income and costs the Employer took the decision to reorganise routes and availed on retirements and restructuring to bring the cost of operating the route into line with standard practice within the company.
2. The Employer contends that under the terms of a National Agreement and in line with the Worker's contract of employment it is entitled to reduce hours of work through reorganisation, restructuring or reconfiguration of routes as business needs change.
3. The dispute has been considered by an internal tribunal established for the purpose of deciding such matters. The decision of that tribunal should be supported and upheld by the Court.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this the Court finds merit in the Union’s claim. Based on the facts of this case the Court finds that the Claimant is entitled to the benefit of the agreement under which he transferred to his current route in 2007. The changes to the route introduced in 2012 do not justify Management’s decision to depart from the terms of that agreement. Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to have his hours restored to the 2007 level. The Claimant should be compensated for any loss of earnings he suffered as a result of Management’s decision to reduce his income at that time.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th June 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.