FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. That the phrase "fully flexible" be replaced by "flexible" in the productivity document.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November and December 2007 a number of conciliation conferences took place with the Unions and the Company in relation to a claim for improvements in pay and conditions for school bus drivers. The Labour Relations Commission issued proposals in December which were put forward on the basis that both sides were recommending them.
The NBRU put forward the proposals to ballot as agreed. SIPTU deferred the ballot and wrote to the LRC concerning the paragraph on 'Flexibility'. The Union sought to have the word 'fully' removed from 'fully flexible' and that"specific reference would be inserted referring to agreed procedures i.e. The Grievance and Disciplinary procedures with qualification that disputes regarding same would be undertaken in an expeditious and transparent manner."
The Company responded by letter stating that clarification in relation to the issue of full flexibility was given at conciliation on 3rd December 2007 and was built into the proposal. The Company did not see any reason why it should be removed.
Following further correspondence between the Company and SIPTU a further conciliation conference took place on the 12th March 2008, at which the Company agreed to insert the following addition to the productivity paragraph on flexibility:-
"This will be operated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the agreed Procedures for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution and Grievance and Discipline."
The dispute, however, could not be resolved at local level following several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st March, 2008, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th May, 2008.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Unions believe that the phrase "fully" renders them into positions that would /could be interpreted as 'complete flexibility' thus giving licence to Management to act in a prejudicial manner.
2.The Unions contend that the removal of the phrase "fully" does not tilt the proposed agreement in any way.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that the requirement for full flexibility is essential for effective planning and based on the requirements of the Department of Education & Science and as such is inviolable.
2. Management contends that any restrictions or conditions placed on the existing operation would be detrimental to the future of the School Transport Scheme and impede Bus Eireann's ability to efficiently carry on the role of Scheme Administrator.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns certain wording used in a set of proposals, which emerged following a number of conciliation conferences, dealing with a claim by SIPTU and the NBRU for improvements in the pay and conditions of employment of part-time school bus drivers. These proposals provided for significant improvements in the pay and conditions of employment of the drivers in return for certain productivity measures. The Unions disputed the wording in connection with the Flexibility required as part of those measures and sought to have the phrase “fully flexible” replaced by “flexible” in the Productivity document. The Unions expressed their concern that the flexibility required could be potential for abuse by the Company.
In an effort to assuage the concerns of the drivers, the Company agreed to insert the following addition to the paragraph:
- “This will be operated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the agreed Procedures for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution and Grievance and Discipline.”
The Court has considered the submissions on both sides and has examined the set of proposals. When account is taken of the significant increases in pay proposed as part of the package, and the commitments made in relation to other aspects of their employment terms, the Court is of the view that the level of flexibility sought in return is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of the removal of the word “fully”. The Court is of the view that the additional sentence proposed by the Company should be amended to include the word “expeditious” and should be inserted into the proposals. Therefore the new sentence to be inserted should read as follows:
- “This will be operated in a fair, equitable and expeditious manner in accordance with the agreed Procedures for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution and Grievance and Discipline.”
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th May, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.