Dublin Bus unions warn of action after ‘disappointing’ pay award

Dublin Bus staff are likely to reject "disappointing" proposals for pay rises of 2.75 per cent per year and this could result in industrial action, trade unions warned on Wednesday.

Earlier today the Labour Court recommended Dublin Bus workers get total increases of 8.25 per cent over three years as part of a new wage agreement.

It also suggested provision should be made for further wage increases for staff based on increased productivity agreed with the company.

The Labour Court proposed pay should increase for Dublin Bus workers by 2.75 per cent from January 2016, January 2017 and January 2018.

However, the increases recommended by the court fall far short of the demands of workers who, in some cases, were seeking increases of up to 31 per cent.

Siptu said its members were likely to reject the proposal and industrial action was likely unless the company made an improved offer.

The National Bus and Rail Union (NBRU) said it could not rule out industrial action.

A recent pay award of more than 18 per cent to Luas drivers over four and a half years which ended a protracted dispute had heightened the expectations among bus workers.

Bus unions argued the Luas deal represented increases of about 3.8 per cent per year.

Dublin Bus workers, who are represented by Siptu and the NBRU, argued their members had not received pay increases since 2008 and had experienced cuts under a number of cost reduction programmes over recent years.

NBRU general secretary Dermot O’Leary said: “Whilst acknowledging the difficulties the Labour Court was presented with in deciding on what level of pay was appropriate, given the eight year hiatus since bus workers last pay increase and pay cuts that were foisted on staff in the intervening period, it is disappointing that the Court has apparently decided not to follow its own guide in not awarding a similar increase of at least 3.8 per cent per year which it awarded to others in the same transport sector as recently as last month in settling the Transdev dispute.”

“We went on record in advance of the resolution of the Luas dispute indicating quite clearly that we would expect similar treatment with regards to bus and rail workers. We also said that we required the pay gap between bus and tram drivers to be addressed as a component of our members pay claim.”

Mr O’Leary said that while it would ultimately be for the union’s members to decide in a ballot on whether the level of pay increases recommended by the Labour Court would be adequate, “we cannot rule out the spectre of industrial action in the coming weeks and months should they reject this recommendation.”

Siptu organiser John Murphy said it was the clear the Labour Court proposals fell well short of the pay claim made by the union's members.

“Due to this the rejection of the proposal is likely. This will mean that if there is not an improved offer made by the employer there is a strong possibility of industrial action by our members in Dublin Bus in the near future.”

The Labour Court recommendation said the pay claim by staff at Dublin Bus had come before it in “complex circumstances”.

It maintained that the company was emerging from a deep recession during which staffing levels had been reduced, wages suppressed and labour productivity significantly increases. It said these measures were aimed at securing the survival of the business.

It said the co-operation of trade unions and employees was critical to this process and that they now expected to recover some of the ground they had lost during the crisis years.

The Labour Court said passenger numbers were now increasing and, fare rises had been applied across the network. It said these factors had generated a significant boost to company revenues.

It said unions now argued that the company had turned a corner and should be in a position to grant “generous wage increases” that reflected pay movements in the economy in general and in the transport sector in particular.

The Labour Court maintained that Dublin Bus management had argued that the recovery in the company’s fortunes was “in its infancy” and should be allowed to develop further before significant wage increases could be supported.

“Accordingly, the company contends that while a pay increase is justified, it must be commensurate with its recent recovery and it must address some of the inefficiencies that continue to limit its capacity to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace.”