Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Bus Driver

A Transport Company

Representatives

  Self Represented

HR Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003848

20/02/2025

The Worker is employed as a Bus Driver. He is not allocated a locker at his work place and did receive, as a part of a broader substantial deal involving around 8 other employee, a benefit for not having  a locker of a payment of about a weeks wages. The Worker sought to have this agreement backdated for him and one other employee to 2021.

The Worker is employed as a Bus Driver,

He is not allocated a locker at his work place and did receive, as a part of a broader substantial deal involving around 8 other employee, a benefit for not having  a locker of a payment of about a weeks wages.

The Worker felt that the deal concluded by the Union and the Employer gave him compensation for a right he did not have contractually to a locker and he could not understand why this was not agreed to back date this to the date he moved to the new location.

 The Worker sought to have this agreement backdated for him and one other employee to 2021.

There was an Industrial Relations agreement in 2024 between the company and trade unions whereby a small group of staff (8) received an extra payment pending the arrival of a new set of lockers.  This payment was in the form of an extra 0hrs 45min pay for each day worked for a defined period of time (25th August – 07th November, 10 weeks in total)

 While it is accepted that no employee has a contractual right to a locker, the company does equally accepted that they are provided in the vast majority of instances. There are a small number of situations across the country where lockers are not provided to drivers, examples include Cork,, Carlow, Athlone and Sligo. 

 While the company is very happy to explain the basis for the 2024 decision, it must be noted that this was part of a wider IR agreement for a particular solution at a particular time and was without prejudice to the overall company position on the provision of lockers.   Should the Worker  seek a financial outcome from the dispute  it would have collective ramifications i.e. its impact would go beyond the Worker and have impact upon a body of workers.

 In March 2024, a claim was brought before the WRC by two Waterford based employees. This matter, also brought under S.13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Recommendation stated;

‘it is well established that the Industrial Relations Act 1969 prohibits the investigation of disputed that relate to a body of workers. In LCR22904 CD 23/137 the Labour Court stated that it did not have the jurisdiction to interpret circulars in circumstances that have national implications ’.

 It further stated ‘As the Industrial Relations Act 1969 prohibits investigation of disputes that relate to a body of workers, I am not in a position to make a recommendation’. 

 Given this dispute clearly affects a collective group within the Employer it is not appropriate for this matter to be addressed as an individual claim before an Adjudication Officer. 

Relying on the above, it is the company’s position that any decision arrived at in this matter should not contain any financial implication, as by doing so would immediately spawn identical claims from over 50 other staff across the business.

 In the majority of cases, lockers are provided to drivers to store personal belongings. While these are provided in the majority of cases, they are not provided in all situations. For information, there are up to approximately 50 drivers currently without lockers.

 This agreed grievance procedure prescribes four separate stages (A-D). Each stage has different nuances, is progressive and allows for an appeal. 

 Stage A is normally somewhat informal, and heard between employee and immediate supervisor

Stage B is more formal and requires the grievance to be submitted in writing. It is investigated by the employee’s immediate local manager and it may or may not involve an oral hearing 

Stage C is a further escalation and is normally investigated by a senior manager in the Company. 

Stage D is the final stage of the procedure and is where the matter may be referred to an agreed third party for investigation. 

 It must be noted that the Worker never raised this matter under the agreed procedure cited above.

 Without prejudice to the preliminary argument outlined earlier in the submission, any agreement reached in 2024 was concluded in good faith, was done to address a particular problem at a particular time and there is certainly no basis to extend this agreement any further.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Section .13—(1) of the Act states;

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

A Recommendation in this dispute has consequences for more than the Worker involved and involves at least 8 people and possibly up to 50 people. The Recommendation would affect the rates of pay and hours of time of work (given the format of the deal previously concluded) and therefore I am excluded by law from making a Recommendation on the substantive issue (dispute) involved.

The Worker did not also use the internal grievance procedure to pursue his dispute prior to bringing his complaint to the WRC. This normally excludes the WRC, based on precedent, to issue a Recommendation on the issue.

The issue of a Recommendation would have national implications for the Respondent and all the implications were not put forward at the Hearing.

The Worker is also seeking to renegotiate a deal concluded in 2024 and this goes against all industrial relations fundamentals.

It should be noted the Worker has dismissed their Union representative from pursuing the complaint  for him and while this is the Workers choice, it did not assist with the presentation of this complaint.

For the reasons cited above I see no justification for the complaint and I find in favour of the Employer.  

Trade Dispute