LCR22512

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

GO-AHEAD IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY STRATIS CONSULTING)

- AND -

180 BUS DRIVERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Driver Schedules And Rostering.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5 August 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 December 2021.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer’s current shift rota is causing difficulties and leaving workers with little to no work life balance.

2. The Employer should consider five week, five over seven rosters for workers which is currently in use in other transport companies

3. An independent body should be brought in to examine the current roster structure in the company and introduce an independent shift roster proposal.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Union’s proposals fail to recognise the contractual obligations the company has with the National Transport Authority.

2. The Union has provided general statements about issues with workers rosters without giving specific examples.

3. The dispute is prematurely before the Court and there is a need for more engagement at a local level.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Court notes that engagements in relation to the matter before the Court have been taking place since 2018.

It is clear to the Court that the Trade Union wishes to bring about a change to rostering arrangements, rules or templates so as to achieve a rostering framework which, in the view of the Trade Union, more effectively addresses concerns as regards work life balance, stability, fairness and equity.

The employer has submitted that it is willing, having regard to the requirements of the NTA and the need to maintain workability and efficiency, to engage with the Trade Union such that if a new rule has to be introduced to improve roster allocations it will be implemented.

It appears to the Court therefore that both parties are open to development and improvement of roster arrangements, rules and templates and that both parties have priorities in that context which they have outlined to each other.

In the experience of the Court, the development and examination of rostering options against the priorities of parties is a detailed and practical process. Parties wishing to alter or enhance existing rostering arrangements, rules or templates or to introduce new rostering arrangements, rules or templates, must necessarily jointly engage in a practical process.

Such a process should involve drawing up draft / sample rosters applying any proposed changes for examination and consideration. Having drawn up such sample rosters, the process must include a joint assessment of the practical and cost implications of the sample rosters and the implementation of any possible new rostering arrangement, rule or template. The process of developing sample rosters may be a process involving the construction of several possible versions as the parties come to jointly understand the implications of particular examples.

In the view of the Court, the expertise as regards the rostering of drivers in this employment is jointly held by the parties before the Court.

In those circumstances, the Court recommends, against the background of the stated priorities of the parties before the Court, that, in order to achieve agreement on the current dispute as regards rostering arrangements in the company, the parties engage jointly to develop sample rosters applying proposed new arrangements, rules or templates so as to establish a joint understanding as regards the practical and cost implications which would flow from the implementation of any change to current arrangements. Having achieved a joint understanding of such matters, the parties should engage to attempt to find agreement.

The process should take place locally in the first instance and, if necessary, with the help of the Workplace Relations Commission. In the event that the parties remain disagreed following 12 weeks of such joint engagement, any such dispute may be referred back to the Court in the normal way.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Cathal Nurney, Court Secretary.