A HIGH COURT judge advised yesterday that the National Bus and Rail Union (NBRU) and Bus Eireann might stay any action until he had given judgment in the dispute. Mr Justice Kelly reserved his judgment at the conclusion of the case taken by two drivers and the union challenging Bus Eireann's viability plan.
The judge said the case raised serious issues for both sides and he would need time to consider the evidence and the legal submissions that had been made. He would reserve judgment and deliver it as soon as he could.
"It would appear to me to be prudent for both of them to stay their hand on taking any action until the judgment is delivered," he said.
The case, by way of judicial review, is being taken by drivers, Mr Michael Rafferty (56), Mullaghdun, Monaghan, and Mr Frank Ward (55), of Coonagh, east Limerick and the NBRU.
The bus workers contend that under section 14 of the Transport Reorganisation of Coras Iompair Eireann Act 1986, the company was not entitled to engage in any alteration or variation of conditions of service for those members of the NBRU, transferred from CIE to Bus Eireann. The Act established the three subsidiary companies, including Bus Eireann.
They contend that the viability plan which was to be implemented last Monday proposed that there were revised "boards" or rosters of duties and that drivers should undertake additional work when not driving, such as issuing tickets, dealing with parcels, and cleaning.
Bus Eireann is contending that it is acting lawfully in seeking to introduce its viability plan and that there is no worsening of conditions for employees. It also claims that conditions of service will not be adversely affected.
Yesterday, Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the company, said no evidence had been tendered as to what the conditions of service were in 1986. No declaration as sought by the applicants that the viability plan sought to impose less beneficial conditions of service. Nowhere did they state that the plan would result in anybody being brought to less beneficial conditions of service.
The section of the Act being contended was exhausted because there had been variations in the conditions of service brought about by collective agreement since 1986.
These included agreement being reached in October 1987 for the 26th wage round; a frame work agreement was concluded in 1988 reducing the working week, in October 1992 there was agreement to include a bonus payable to one person operation drivers for pension calculation.
The applicants were not making a case that the conditions of service were being varied by the plan. Their case seemed to concern work practices. For example, sweeping duties were work practices.
In 1986, fundamental rights and security were protected and the basic job description of employees formerly of CIE were preserved. It was not about whether they did additional duties. Conditions of service were different from work practices.
The company was requesting, that drivers filled idle time by doing additional duties. However, this was not a breach of the terms and conditions regarding their job description. It was a question of degree.
If the additional duties only took up a small amount of time, that did not alter the terms of the contract which made an employee a driver. Mr Fitzsimons said if an order was made in favour of the applicants, then it should be limited only to any variations found, if any, and not to the whole of the viability plan.
Mr Rory Brady SC, for the applicants, said his clients were not seeking a declaration that the, plan was ultra vires (outside the powers) or contrary to the statute.
They only sought a declaration insofar as it might violate the statute.