FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Income Continuance Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Unions for an increase in the Employer's contribution to the premium payable under the current Income Continuance Scheme. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st March, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th May, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Employer is not contributing the agreed ratio of 38% of the premium cost.
2. The contribution of 38% has applied since the formation of the scheme and any other rate has never been agreed.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. A fair and reasonable proposal was put to the Unions as a result of Conciliation. However, it was rejected.
2. The Company is contributing to the level agreed in 2009.
3. Due to the challenging operating environment, the Union's proposal cannot be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The parties confirmed to the Court that they have operated a collective agreement arising from the introduction of OPO and dating from 1987 whereby the Company subsidised an income continuance plan for drivers at the rate of 38% of the cost of premium. The parties are disagreed as to whether that collective agreement changed in 2009.
The Court has not been presented with clear evidence that the parties reached a revised collective agreement in 2009 which changed the terms of the then existing agreement as regards the company’s subvention of the drivers’ income continuance plan. The Court acknowledges that the operation of a scheme which provides for payment by the company of a contribution which is open-ended in a volatile premium environment presents difficulty to the company. This is all the more so in a period of general financial challenge for the company.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should accept that the 1987 collective agreement continues in force. The Court further recommends that the parties acknowledge that no collective agreement is incapable of amendment or change.
The Court therefore recommends that, should either party wish to bring about change to the 1987 collective agreement, the parties should agree to deal with any such proposal through their normal procedures. Any such engagement should take full account of the value of income continuance to drivers and also of the financial circumstances of the company. In the meantime the company should make arrangements to ensure that the 1987 agreement is applied with effect from 1stJanuary 2015 following the most recent premium increase.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
13th May 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.