Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87376 Case Number: LCR11376 Section / Act: S67 Parties: I.D.L. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9650.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that clause 4 of the Recommendation is the
appropriate clause for this case and cannot therefore recommend
that the Company should now be required to impose restrictions on
the amount of goods collected by customers. The Court does
however recommend that the Company should supply the information
necessary for the Union to monitor closely the proportion of goods
being collected by customers especially when transport contractors
are used by the customer. The Court further recommends that the
allowance given to customers when they collect goods should not be
increased in money or real terms without the agreement of the
Union and the Company should continue to encourage customers to
use I.D.L. transport for delivery.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87376 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11376
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11376
Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9650.
Background:
2. In 1985 a dispute stopped work in the Company. The Labour
Court intervened and on 1st April, 1985 issued Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9650. In August, 1985 the Court issued Labour
Court Recommendation 9893 which clarified the earlier
recommendation. In early 1987 the Union alleged that there had
been a significant increase in the amount of product collected by
'callers' at the Company's premises in North Mall, Cork while at
the same time the workers concerned, eight drivers, were not fully
utilised. The Union contended that this action was in breach of
clauses 3 and 4 of the Labour Court Recommendation 9650. The
Company rejected the Union's interpretation of the situation. No
agreement was reached at local negotiations and on 1st May, 1987
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 7th May, 1987 but no
agreement was reached. On 11th May, 1987 the case was referred to
the Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 6th August, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) For the last few months the workers have not been fully
utilised and indeed on most days they are not working
at all. Despite this 'callers' are coming into the
premises and collecting goods that the workers should
be delivering. The workers are prepared to do this
work. As a result of the dispute in 1985 the workers
got commitments that all the Company's own transport
would be fully utilised before outside 'callers' were
allowed in (see clauses 3 and 4 of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9650).
(ii) The Union fear that the Company is allowing the
transport operation to be deliberately run down.
(iii) The Union has no objection to the traditional callers
who have collected product from the Company for many
years. But there has been a big increase in recent
years with some of the callers using outside
contractors to collect the product for them.
(iv) The Company should not give the 'callers' an allowance
for collecting their product. The Company's own
transport cannot compete if the 'callers' can collect
it for less.
(v) The facility may be available without any problems in
Dublin and Galway but the workers in those depots are
fully utilised. This is not the case in North Mall.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The collection of goods by customers has always been a
feature of the Company's business over the years and
this practice has continued particularly in view of the
necessity to maintain good customer relations. The
Court fully recognised this facility and recommended
that it should continue particularly given that the
employment of drivers was not adversely affected.
(b) The earnings levels at North Mall reflect the
continuing high level of overtime so the caller
facility has obviously had no detrimental affect on
earnings.
(c) The likelihood is that the customers would be tempted
to obtain their spirits elsewhere if they cannot get
the service they require from the Company.
(d) This facility is fully available at the Company's other
delivery depots in Dublin and Galway.
(e) The Company has always honoured the commitment to give
the bulk of its delivery work to Company drivers
notwithstanding the fact that the drivers have failed,
as yet, to implement the Standard Hour Payment System
contrary to the advice of their own union officials and
the I.C.T.U. Advisor. In these circumstances, there
can be no justifiable reason for impeding customers who
opt to collect their goods. The unions are free as
outlined in Labour Court Recommendation 9650 to monitor
the level of callers at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that clause 4 of the Recommendation is the
appropriate clause for this case and cannot therefore recommend
that the Company should now be required to impose restrictions on
the amount of goods collected by customers. The Court does
however recommend that the Company should supply the information
necessary for the Union to monitor closely the proportion of goods
being collected by customers especially when transport contractors
are used by the customer. The Court further recommends that the
allowance given to customers when they collect goods should not be
increased in money or real terms without the agreement of the
Union and the Company should continue to encourage customers to
use I.D.L. transport for delivery.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_______________________
Chairman.
26th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.