ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019324
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Bus Driver | Employer |
Representatives | Inhouse Solicitor |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00025214-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The employee is a school bus driver. His claim is for 110 minutes per week in additional pay retrospective to the school year 2017-2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
From the commencement of the 2017-18 school year, one of the schools on his run introduced a half day finish on Friday. As this affected the opening time of the school by twenty minutes each day, he is claiming that additional time should be added to his operating board. His operating board includes a statement ’Friday PM only-additional 30 minutes required on board due to the school closing @13.15’. This followed a review of the schedule by inspectors and this is the additional 30 minutes claimed, bringing the total to 110 minutes. The manager had said at a meeting that any additional time caused by the half day would be paid, and this is happening throughout the country. Reference by the employer to a Labour Court Recommendation which rejected a similar claim from drivers was rejected by the employee and his representative as not being the same situation covered by this claim SIPTU criticised the fact that no local discussions were facilitated by the employer prior to the matter being referred to the WRC. The internal grievance procedure was not adhered to by the employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent presented the employees earnings over the period commencing school year 2016 and found no loss of earnings. Reference was made to an agreement of 2013 known as the Harbour Hotel agreement That agreement allowed for an increase in the employee’s hours above what were 33.05 per week at the time. The employee’s hours on the operating board were explained at the hearing and these showed that as per a letter from the Regional School Transport Manager of 09 August 2017,the departure time on Friday was changed to 13.25 which is shown on the operating board. Therefore, the hours of the employee were adjusted following the Harbour Hotel Agreement and again to incorporate the 30 minutes being claimed for the Friday . Regarding the remaining 80 minutes claimed, accepting that the school start time was brought forward each day, this did not affect the hours of attendance of the employee, his departure and finishing times remained unchanged. It was submitted that a Labour Court Recommendation recently accepted by drivers, related to this claim and that the Court found against the drivers in that instance. Regarding the failure to follow the grievance procedure, the Regional Manager stated that she had spoken to the employee locally. Efforts to arrange a meeting with the relevant union official were unsuccessful for one reason or another. Once the matter was referred to the WRC, the matter was in process. |
Findings and Conclusions:
To address the procedural aspects raised by SIPTU, there can be no doubt that the employer failed to follow their own grievance procedure and any corresponding failure on the part of the employee would or should not be acceptable to the employer. The employer relies heavily on adherence to its own procedures to ensure that every effort is made by employees to resolve disputes internally. The WRC is the start of a process of last resort which should not be merely regarded as a process to mark time rather than engage in dispute resolution. In this case, the employer failed to address the actual claim in their submission, failed to provide the Labour Court Recommendation cited at the hearing and had no documentation to support the assertion that the employee is paid for all hours worked. However, tempting it might be to find in favour of the employee based on his employer’s lax approach to this case, the Operating Board of the employee was examined in detail at the hearing. The employer was invited to supply a previous operating board for comparative purposes. This was not provided up to the date of finalising this recommendation. In relation to the claim for the 80 minutes, the employee made no claim that he is in fact working hours outside of the times given n the board for starting and finishing and this claim is rejected on the basis that the hours on the board are the hours worked and therefore no additional payment is merited-whatever words were used by a manager at a meeting with drivers. In relation to the 30 minutes claimed, the documentation shows that an additional 30 minutes was added to his operating board in 2017 to allow for the 30 minutes on Friday-this resulted in his hours for Friday increasing from 05.35 hours to 06.05 minutes. The figures also show an additional 20 minutes fuel travel time bringing the total hours from 32:30 to 33:20 hours. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint / dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employee accept that the increase in his paid hours in 2017,reflected in an increase in earnings in the school year 2017/2018 reflect his actual hours of work, including duties at the base and that there is no payment outstanding for his hours of work. |
Dated: December 12th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Pay, additional hours/school bus service |