LCR23179

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 1 July 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 2 September 2025.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS.

1. In 2018, when routes transferred from Dublin Bus to an alternative operator (under BMO), the company recognised and agreed that enhanced compensation was applicable.
2. The Unions contend that an additional 20% above the levels of enhanced compensation of 2018 should be paid to reflect the significant cost of living increases within the 7 years since then.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS.

1. The 2018 agreement clearly identifies where the routes marked in drivers would be displaced by Bus Market Opening. The 123 is not included here.
2. The 2018 agreement states that “The compensation payments outlines above are unique to the current market opening routes and do not set a precedent for any future route schedule change.”
   
   

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties relates to the calculation of compensation for bus drivers arising from loss of the 123 route.

The Unions submitted that there is a longstanding agreement between the parties in respect of compensation for route elimination. This agreement predated Bus Market Opening (BMO). In 2018 BMO commenced and several routes were transferred from Dublin Bus to Go Ahead. Under the auspices of the WRC, agreement was reached on a number of issues including a compensation package linked to BMO.

 In early 2025 notification was given of Bus Service revisions associated with phase 7 of Bus Connect. The Unions and Employer engaged, and progress was made on most issues. The exception being route123/73 and the appropriate compensation applicable. It is the Unions position that the normal long-standing compensation would apply to drivers on all routes impacted with the exception of route 123/73. It is their position that this route similar to those that transferred to Go-Ahead in 2018 should have the 2018 compensation levels applied. They also sought that an additional 20% should be applied to the 2018 rates to reflect cost of living increases.  The Union argues that while the F spine is phase 7 of Bus Connects, this is the first time since 2018 that any Dublin Bus routes have transferred to an alternative operator and therefore the 2018 compensation is the appropriate package.

The Employer submitted that they have an agreed compensation package since 2009 that has covered all scenarios whereby Dublin Bus routes are eliminated or reduced as a result of changes required by the National Transport Authority (NTA). In 2016 the NTA undertook a review of the Greater Dublin Bus network following which a complete network design was approved under the title of Bus Connects. Under this project every bus route in the network would be eliminated and replaced to allow for enhanced orbital movements and integration with other public transport modes. In respect of the claim before the Court it’s the Employers position that the 2018 agreement was ring fenced and is not relevant to the circumstances of this case.  The route in this case is not being eliminated under BMO but under Bus Connects. The 2009 agreement has been used in every phase of Bus Connects to date. While the Unions claim that route 123 is being replaced by route 73, this is actually a separate route with a similar but not identical route alignment. The Employer does not accept that the drivers on the 123 routes are affected any differently to any other driver who has seen their route eliminated in all Bus Connect phases to date.

The Court reviewed both the 2009 and 2018 agreements. The Court notes that the 2018 WRC agreement specifically states, “The compensation payments outlined above are unique to the current market opening routes and do not set a precedent for any future route schedule change.”

That clause in the agreement debars the Court from relying on that arrangement on this occasion, in respect of the issues currently before it. If the Court were to do so it would undermine the value of a clause of that nature not just in this employment but in other agreements brokered by the WRC. On that basis the Court cannot recommend concession of the Unions claims.  In the course of discussion during the hearing the Employer indicated a willingness to engage with the Unions with a view to updating the rates in the 2009 agreement and this is something the parties should consider.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
23 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.