Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87534 Case Number: LCR11354 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LAGER DISTRIBUTORS LTD. - and - ATGWU |
Claims for: (i) The provision of a helper. (ii) The introduction of a 40 hour week with associated over-time payments.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is satisfied that the system of payment in operation
in the Company is not unfair and also accepts that the method of
delivery does not require a helper. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87534 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11354
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11354
Parties: LAGER DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for:
(i) The provision of a helper.
(ii) The introduction of a 40 hour week with associated
over-time payments.
Background:
2. The Company is a distribution agent for Tennants Larger in the
Dublin area. It employs three drivers of whom one (the current
claimant) is a member of the Union. The following rates of pay
apply:
(i) Basic rate - #190 per week.
(ii) A special Saturday payment.
(iii) A lunch allowance of #7 per day.
(iv) A keg bonus payment of 38 per keg delivered over 100
per day (details with Court).
(v) A non contributory pension scheme is in operation
(details with Labour Court).
The Union, on behalf of the worker, served a claim on the Company
for the provision of a helper and the introduction of a 40 hour
week with overtime payments for any excess hours worked. The
Company rejected the Union's claim for a helper, on the grounds
that it would represent a substantial cost increase to its
operations and would be quite impractical given the size of
vehicle which the Company runs. With regard to the claim for a 40
hour week plus overtime payments, the Company stated that it was
currently geared towards productivity and flexibility which was
remunerated by a highly competitive salary package. These factors
accounted for its success with Tennents. As agreement could not
be reached at local level the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court, on 23rd February, 1987.
A conciliation conference took place on 27th March, 1987. No
agreement was reached and on 2nd July, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 27th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
Claim 1
3. (a) Our member drives a rigid body mitsubishi truck, which
has a maximum capacity of 71 kegs of beer or lager. On
the average day at least two truck loads would be
delivered - entailing the delivery of approximately 140
kegs for that day. The average number of drops to
individual customers would be approximately 20 - 24 per
day, depending on the weather and demand. Each keg -
either of lager or beer - would weigh 9 stone, and each
keg has to be physically loaded on to the truck at the
warehouse, with the assistance of a fork-lift truck
working to the side of the delivery vehicle.
(b) Similar deliveries of beer products in kegs to public
houses and licensed premises by Heineken and Beamish &
Crawford using a similar type truck as Lager
Distributors, have both a driver and a helper. We
include both these companies because, unlike A.
Guinness's, they have a similar volume delivery as
Lager Distributors. In view of the physical effort
involved in loading 9 stone weight kegs of lager or
beer on and off a truck, the claim for a helper is a
reasonable one.
Claim 2 Implementation of a 40 hour week plus overtime
payments.
4. (i) The Union feels that this claim is most pressing to
resolve as the 40 hour week has been universally
applied and accepted in all employments for more than
twenty years.
(ii) The Union recognises that its member knew the terms
applicable to him at the time of his employment. This
however, is no barrier to his endeavouring to improve
his situation in relation to terms and conditions of
employment.
(iii) A number of other companies involved in lager
distribution pay overtime to their workers (details
supplied to the Labour Court). In the light of the
above arguments the Union requests the Court to
recommend in favour of its claims.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) Claim for the provision of a helper.
The Company totally rejects this claim as it would
represent a substantial cost increase to its
operations. It would also be quite impractical given
the size of vehicles which the Company runs. The
Company has operated on a driver only basis for the
past five years and has based its costs accordingly.
The worker was made fully aware of this system prior to
his joining the Company in May, 1985, and had an
opportunity to work during his trial period to assess
the nature of the work. The Company's remuneration
package has been structured to take full account of the
manning levels.
(ii) Introduction of a 40 hour week with associated overtime
payments
The Company is currently geared towards productivity
and flexibility which are reflected in its success with
Tennents and also in its salary packages which is
highly remunerative. The Company does not operate a
strict starting or finishing time and the work day is
centered around delivery performance with an excellent
basic salary, which is paid regardless of volume
throughput. The average working day is from 9 am to 6
pm although exceptions will arise which are more than
catered for in the additional keg bonus payment. The
Company believe that any introduction of overtime
linked payments would be counter productive, and also
difficult to monitor as drivers have the use of their
vehicles at home and do not always return to base. It
would also be quite impractical to operate two salary
scales for three employees as the others have no wish
to change from the present system. To conclude, the
Company offer a very high standard of service to their
clients and back this up with an equally high standard
of pay and conditions, which is borne out by the fact
that no other member of the staff wish to associate
themselves with either claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is satisfied that the system of payment in operation
in the Company is not unfair and also accepts that the method of
delivery does not require a helper. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
7th August, 1987
P.F./J.C.