FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Calculation of driver ratios in Summerhill Garage.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to staffing levels. The dispute relates specifically to the methodology for the calculation of ratios of drivers rostered to work on any day. While the dispute initially arose in the Summerhill Garage it is apparent that the matter relates to staffing levels across all garages.The 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 28th November, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th April, 2018. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties relates to the methodology for the calculation of the ratio of drivers rostered on any day in Summerhill Garage. The main issues arise from the WRC settlement terms and Labour Court Recommendation in relation to the 2009 cost reduction plan and the following statement:
- “13. Tour Duties and Long Term Ill Staff
Given the new rota arrangements introduced in order to comply with the 48-hour week cognisance will be taken by the Company of the numbers involved in the above area.”
While there were slight variances in the Unions’ claims their position was that there had been no agreement to include in the calculation of the ratios these issues in the manner that the Employer is doing. The Unions’ belief is that the term “cognisance” required the Employer to engage with the Union prior to any changes or alterations to the manner in which the ratios were calculated.
The Employer’s position is that they have complied with the WRC Agreement and the Labour Court Recommendation. They point to the fact that there are seven Garages and the same methodology is applied in all the Garages. It is their position that this issue cannot be addressed in terms of one Garage and any discussion must include all Garages. They also point to the fact that the parties on an unrelated matter are due to engage under the auspices of the WRC and that the issue of driver ratios is one of the items on the agenda.
The Unions did not dispute the fact that any decision in relation to the claim before the Court would impact on all the other Garages. It was the Unions' position that the claim they were making related to Summerhill Garage because this was where the issue came to light in 2015. It was their view that the other talks referred to by the Employer might have the capacity to address the issue going forward but that did not resolve the current issue.
The Court, having read the submissions of the parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions made on the day, does not believe that, in circumstances where the issue being challenged is part of a collective agreement that is applied on a consistent basis to all Garages, it can deal with one Garage in isolation.
The Court recommends that if the issue of the methodology for the calculation of the ratio of drivers rostered is to be dealt with it should be done on a Companywide basis. If the forthcoming talks provide an opportunity to do so then that opportunity should be availed of.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
15th June 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.