Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86928 Case Number: LCR11006 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH SHELL LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of five drivers for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
(5) The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties and taking into account the previous submissions which
were the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,083, does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86928 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11006
CC861814 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11006
PARTIES: IRISH SHELL LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
(1) Claim on behalf of five drivers for compensation for loss of
earnings.
Background:
(2) Following an unofficial strike early in 1985 involving the
Dublin terminal, thirteen workers were made redundant and a number
of changes in work practices were introduced by the Company. The
Union claimed a productivity increase for these changes and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court. In Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,083 the Court recommended that the revised
work practices should be taken into consideration in the
negotiations, which were ongoing, on the second phase productivity
payment.
As a result of the thirteen redundancies, five plant operators
were transferred to driving duties. The Union claims that because
of the transfers the individuals concerned lost between #5,000 and
#8.000 per annum - mainly due to changing from three shifts to
two. The Union claims compensation for these losses. The Company
does not accept that there is any basis for the claim, regarding
that any loss which was involved is covered by the payment for the
second phase of the productivity deal, and that this is in
accordance with Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,083.
On 23rd September, 1986, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No basis for a
settlement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
6th November, 1986, and the issue was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 12th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
(3) (a) On the resumption of work after the unofficial strike,
the Company looked for volunteers from the static
staff to be trained and become drivers. The Company
were looking for a total of six volunteers. One man
from the garage volunteered and in the absence of any
other volunteers the Company approached the five most
junior terminal operatives and gave them the following
choice - accept training and become drivers or leave
the unemployment.
(b) The five workers concerned in their former capacity as
terminal operatives, worked a 19 week shift pattern
which had a guaranteed minimum of fifty-six hours
overtime built in. Incidental overtime involving
loading duties, shipping discharge and bank holiday
cover was also available. The workers concerned
should receive some compensation for the loss of these
earnings.
(c) The workers will, in the long term, suffer a major
loss in their pension entitlements. The reduction
from a three cycle rate to a two cycle rate, with the
appropriate reduction in contributions, means that
pension benefits when they become due will be
substantially less.
(d) A further loss was also suffered recently by the
workers concerned since they would have been involved
in a claim for compensation in respect of a site
transfer. This claim was settled at conciliation and
the workers involved received a payment of #2,000.
(e) The workers concerned were involved in a forced change
of grade situation which was not covered by Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10,083. As a consequence of
having their grade forceably changed they are being
denied the right to compensation for the substantial
amounts of earnings lost as a direct result.
Company's arguments:
(4) (1) Prior to returning to work after the unofficial strike
the intended changes were conveyed to and accepted by
the workforce. Resulting from these changes in work
practices and voluntary redundancies a shortfall in
driver numbers and an excess in operative numbers
existed. The workers concerned in this case were
transferred in order to achieve the current manning
levels in both categories.
(2) The need to reduce manning levels at that time was
vital. Had it not been possible to achieve this by
voluntary means then other, more drastic measures
would have become necessary. The maximisation of the
situation in relation to volunteers, and the transfer
of the people involved avoided this action. Those who
volunteered to leave did so, at high cost to the
Company, under the very generous terms of the
Company's severance scheme.
(3) The Union sought productivity payments in respect of
both the changes in work practices and the reduction
in manning levels. The Court in its Recommendation
No. 10,083 rejected the claim and recommended that in
the context of the ongoing second phase productivity
negotiations, the revised work practices should be
taken into consideration. This has been complied
with, and an increase of #20 per week has been
achieved, dating from 1st November, 1986.
(4) Overtime is necessary from time to time among all
categories. Whilst the levels of overtime earnings of
the operatives exceeded those of drivers at the time
of the transfer, there is no guarantee that this will
always be the case or that high overtime, or indeed
any overtime, will be a continuing feature for any
category.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties and taking into account the previous submissions which
were the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,083, does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__9th__February,__1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman