FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRANSDEV LIGHT RAIL LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Change in work practice - breaks.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 4 July 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 August 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company have introduced a major change to current agreed work practices associated with the opening of the Luas Cross City line (LCC).
2. Drivers are obliged to break in a different depot to that in which they signed-on for duty resulting in increased cost to drivers affected as they no longer have the option of bringing their lunches to work.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company submitted that the parties’ 2016 agreement provides for full co-operation with LCC and precludes the serving of cost increasing claims.
2.The Company acknowledge that further engagement is necessary on the facilities available at Sandyford and Broombridge depots.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
This matter appears to affect drivers on the Green Line Luas Service only. The opening of Luas Cross City (LCC) meant that in addition to the original depot in Sandyford a new depot was established in Broombridge. Current rostering arrangements (which are being worked under protest in light of the within dispute) mean that, whereas prior to the opening of LCC all breaks were taken in the only depot in place on the Green Line and consequently all breaks were taken at a drivers originating depot, some breaks are now taking place at the depot which is not a driver’s originating depot.
There is no issue before the Court as regards the length of breaks or any associated matter. Neither does any disparity in quality of facilities as between the two depots appear to be a significant issue and in fact the Court understands that the parties continue to engage as regards facilities enhancement and related matters at both the Sandyford and Broombridge depots.
The Court understands that the Trade Union claim is founded on a change to pre-existing arrangements and a concern as regards a Driver’s capacity to carry food safely from their originating depot to the other depot when he or she is scheduled to take a break at the other depot. The Trade Union points out that if a driver goes to work by car he or she will leave that car at their originating depot and consequently be restricted in their capacity to travel to a shop or other food outlet at the other depot while on a thirty-minute break.
The Company contends that the parties’ 2016 agreement, which is still current, provides for full co-operation with LCC and precludes the serving of cost increasing claims for the lifetime of the agreement. The Company estimates that the cost of concession of the Trade Union claim is €250,000 per annum.
The Court notes the emphasis of the Trade Union side on a change to custom and practice. The Court accepts that there is a change arising from the establishment of a two depot Tram line across which drivers travel as against the prior position where only one depot existed. To that degree the Court finds that custom and practice deriving from the physical infrastructure was bound to change as that infrastructure was developed and that should be accepted. In that context the Court notes that the parties’ 2016 agreement, deriving from the Court’s comprehensive Recommendation LCR21241, commits that‘Drivers should provide full cooperation with the extension of the Luas service to Broombridge in terms of its operation and any associated preparatory work’.
The Court notes that Drivers’ terms and conditions of employment including remuneration and overall working hours are unaffected by the matter in dispute. The Court also notes that of 67 daily duties Monday to Friday only 12 have all breaks at a depot other than the Driver’s originating depot, on a Saturday only 1 of 47 duties has all breaks in a depot other than the Driver’s originating depot and on a Sunday all breaks are at a Driver’s originating depot.
The Trade Union have expressed concern as regards the efficacy of a cooler bag supplied to Drivers to facilitate them in transporting pre-prepared food from their originating depot to the other depot so as to be safely consumed while on a break. The Court would not normally concern itself with the functioning of cooler bags on the basis that any matters arising therefrom should be easily capable of being addressed by the parties themselves in a direct dialogue which is focused on resolving practical problems. However, noting that the matter has been set out to the Court in submissions from the parties as being a continuing point of dispute between them and understanding that a risk assessment of that bag is being conducted, the Court recommends that this should be completed and that the Company should commit to ensuring that any cooler bag supplied to Drivers is capable of transporting food safely from one depot to another.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should continue to work together to optimise the facilities available in both depots and in particular to ensure, as far as possible, that Drivers enjoy similar facilities in both locations. The Court also recommends that Drivers should accept that, in the context of their agreement to co-operate with the operation of LCC and that agreement’s preclusion of cost increasing claims for its lifetime, it is reasonable for a Driver to be required to take breaks at a depot other than his or her originating depot.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
17 August 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.