THE National Bus and Rail Union and two bus drivers yesterday lost their High Court challenge to Bus Eireann's decision to implement a viability plan.
Bus Eireann was to have implemented the plan on October 14th last and the union threatened industrial action. Both sides later agreed to defer action pending the court hearing.
The union and the two drivers had submitted that the company was not entitled to alter conditions of service of members without union agreement. The drivers, Mr Michael Rafferty (55), from Monaghan, and Mr Frank Ward (55), from Limerick, had been employed previously by CIE.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly, in his reserved judgment, said that the company was correct in saying that the changes which it sought to bring about involved work practices rather than changes in conditions of service.
These alterations did not affect the rate of pay, hours of work, length of holidays, sick leave or pension rights. Neither did they, in his view, alter the basic or core work of a bus driver.
These altered duties would only fall to be executed at times when drivers would otherwise be idle and yet remunerated. In each case, these duties would constitute a small part of the overall work which would remain bus driving.
Mr Justice Kelly said he therefore concluded that the proposed alterations related to work practices rather than conditions of service. Such alterations were not protected by section 14 of the Transport (Reorganisation of CIE) Act, 1986.
If he was wrong in that conclusion and the proposed alterations amounted to a change in conditions, that of itself did not trigger section 14(5). That provision did not prohibit an alteration or change in conditions of service unless it brought about a worsening in the employee's position. The change must be less beneficial to the employee before section 14 applied.
"What worsening is brought about here? Can an employee complain that his conditions of service are worsened when his employer reorders his working arrangements so as to ensure that the employee is not idle while being paid? That is what these changes hope to achieve in an ailing company", the judge said.
Mr Justice Kelly stated earlier that unfortunately, the company had not been very successful, at least in recent times, from a fiscal point of view. Provincial city services lost over £2 million annually. Stage carrier services fared no better. Only the Expressway/ Supabus service was profitable it made in excess of £2 million each year.
When the case was heard last month, the union and the two drivers contended that under section 14, Bus Eireann was not entitled to alter or vary conditions of service for members transferred from CIE to Bus Eireann.
The union and the drivers claimed that because of the whole industrial relations background at the time of the break up of CIE, they were given protection by what was effectively a power of veto under section 14.
The general secretary of the NBRU, Mr Peter Bunting, stated on affidavit that the viability plan would dramatically affect the terms and conditions of Bus Eireann drivers. The function of drivers was to convey passengers but under the plan, they would be required to undertake other tasks not associated with drivers.
The union had recognised for some considerable time a need for an extensive review of work practices in Bus Eireann. The company and union had met on eight occasions in August and September to attempt to reach agreement on the implementation of the new plan.
Bus Eireann contended that it was acting lawfully in seeking to introduce its viability plan and that there was no worsening of conditions for employees. Conditions of service would not be affected adversely.