Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87796 Case Number: LCR11571 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MAXOL LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute re the proposed closure of Cork Lube Oil depot.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company's proposals are reasonable and should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87796 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11571
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MAXOL LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute re the proposed closure of Cork Lube Oil depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 7 men delivering products from its Cork
depot. In the case of lubricating oil this involves double
handling as the product is delivered from Dublin by the Dublin
based truck off loaded in Cork, and then delivered to the
Company's five distributors there. The Company proposes to
introduce direct delivery to the distributors thereby closing the
lubricating operations in Cork from 1st January, 1988. The Union
rejects this as it will result in 2 redundancies and states that
under an agreement/deal in 1985 (details supplied to the Court)
local management guaranteed that the lorry for oil distribution
would remain. In an effort to avoid redundancies the Union
proposed that a sales operator be appointed from the existing
workforce. This suggestion however was completely unacceptable to
the Company. It insists that the double handling of the lube oil
is inefficient, and that changes are necessary, particularly in
the light of the current financial position. Agreement could not
be reached at local level, and on 2nd September, 1987, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 20th October, 1987. No
agreement was reached, and on 27th October, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 26th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1985 the workers in Cork changed the manning level and
removed certain restrictive practices in the lubricating oil
operation at the request of a Company director. The workers
were promised that for these changes the lubricating oil lorry
would be operated full-time and gainfully every day. These
promises were not honoured by the Company, and it is the
Union's view that had they been rigidly adhered to the current
problem would not exist.
3. 2. The Company has stated that they intend eliminating the
double handling involved because of the cost and that this
move will make them more efficient. This proposed change does
not take into account the effects it will have on staffing at
the Cork depot, since it will cause two redundancies. This is
to take place in an area which everyone knows, has been
seriously affected by major job losses. It is not outside the
scope or ability of the Company to find an alternative method
of handling this problem which would meet the aspirations of
both sides and avoid these two redundancies.
3. In order to try and resolve the problem raised by the
Company the Union suggested that a sales operator be appointed
from the existing work force, part of whose function would
entail generating new business. This serious and genuine
attempt to resolve the problem was rejected by the Company.
This proposal could have eliminated a major fear for the
future for both sides, since it is an established and accepted
fact that it is impossible to exercise control over
distributors and the customers to whom they deliver.
4. The Union is not opposed to distributors being appointed,
provided this is done following consultation and agreement,
and provided they are not being used to the detriment of the
workers. Obviously the best method of exercising some control
over distributors, is to make direct deliveries to them, by
the Company's own transport from the depot in their area. In
the light of the facts of the case, the Union expects the
Court to recommend in its favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There can be no doubting the savings that would accrue
from eliminating the double handling exercise and, thus,
maintaining the efficiency of the lubricating oil operations
at a reasonable level. It was clear to the Company last April
that it could not continue to ignore the inefficiencies
involved in the double handling situation regarding
lubricating oil deliveries to and from the Cork and Limerick
depots. However, the cut in income of over #2m brought about
by the July petrol price reduction adds even more urgency to
the need for cost cutting. The continuing drop in the demand
for oil products generally is a further burden on the Company.
2. If the Company did not take this step it is likely that it
would eventually have to stop supplying some of its customers
in Cork. This would have an impact on our sales volumes
which, in turn, could have an effect on job security in other
parts of the firm.
4. 3. The Union's proposal to make 1 of the drivers a van
salesman is not practical and would simply amount to
"postponing the inevitable". There is no practical
alternative to the Company's plans, although the Company
stresses that redundancies will only arise if and when one or
other of the two absentees returns to duty. Even then, the
Company would be willing to give further consideration to how
the manpower reductions might be achieved. The Company
respectfully urges the members of the Court to support it in
this approach.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company's proposals are reasonable and should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__9th___December,___1987. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman