Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87452 Case Number: LCR11287 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PLANT & MACHINERY LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of eight workers, for the payment of travelling time.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied, on the evidence produced, that the
requirement to travel in this Company does not equate to the
requirement in the Construction Industry and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87452 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11287
CC862004 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11287
Parties: PLANT & MACHINERY LIMITED
(Represented by the Construction Industry Federation)(CIF)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO 1 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of eight workers, for the payment of
travelling time.
Background:
2. In April, 1986, the Union submitted a claim for payment of
travelling time on the following basis:
0-4 miles - 1 hour's pay per day
4-5 miles - 1.25 hours pay per day
5-6 miles - 1.5 hours pay per day
6-8 miles - 1.75 hours pay per day
8-12 miles - 2 hours pay per day
12-20 miles - 2.5 hours pay per day
The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that the workers
concerned were not covered by the Construction Industry Registered
Employment Agreement (REA). Local level discussions failed to
resolve the dispute and on the 5th December, 1986 the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
progress was made at a conciliation conference held on the 26th
January, 1987, but the Company was not agreeable to having the
dispute jointly referred to the Labour Court. The Union objected
to this but reserved its position pending consultation with its
members. Following a general meeting on the 14th May, 1987, the
workers concerned voted unanimously to enter into official dispute
with the Company because of what the Union termed Management's
refusal to adhere to normal industrial relations procedure.
Official pickets were placed on the Company's premises on the 3rd
June. Following discussions with the CIF and the intervention of
the Labour Court, the pickets were lifted on the 5th June on the
grounds that the Company was agreeable to a joint referral to the
Labour Court. A Court hearing took place on the 19th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Company is involved in the supply and maintenance of
plant and machinery in the construction industry. The
workers have a direct involvement in that the drivers
bring the plant and machinery to and from the various
locations and the fitters maintain them regularly on the
building sites.
(b) It is unacceptable that this payment should not be
conceded given that in all other terms and conditions the
workers concerned have had to accept the industry norm.
No local level discussions take place on wage rounds
because the Company insist on applying the industry
agreement. In addition, the workers contribute to the
industry pension and sick pay scheme and receive the
various other allowances such as meal and tool money.
(c) Whilst it may be argued that the workers benefit from the
conditions that apply within the industry, the Company's
insistence upon adhering to this has had its drawbacks
also. In 1985 the Company refused to pay above the
statutory redundancy terms because that is what applies
in the industry. That dispute was referred to the Labour
Court which found in favour of the Company (LCR9613
refers). Therefore, in the past, attempts by the workers
to get enhanced terms and conditions have been
steadfastly resisted by the Company on the basis of
adherence to the industry norm and the Court has, on
occasion, accepted this position.
(d) The Union now ask why should it be in any way different
on this occasion. The workers have had to accept the
swings and roundabouts of the situation and believe that
in all fairness the same position has to be accepted by
the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The workers covered by the claim are paid basic rates,
plus meal and tool allowances similar to those paid in
the construction industry. However, the Company has
never paid travelling time to its workers merely for
turning up for work at their permanent place of
employment at Ringsend.
(ii) Even though the Company pays the same basic rate as
building firms, this is a matter of convenience only.
The fact is that plant and equipment hire firms are not
covered by the registered agreement for the construction
industry. The second schedule to that agreement sets
out in detail the kind of firms which come within its
scope. From this it can be seen that equipment hire
companies do not fall within the definition of building
firms.
(iii) Travelling payments were introduced in the construction
industry many years ago in order to compensate workers
for the expense incurred in travelling in the
performance of their duties. This expense could be
considerable in an industry where, in theory, a worker
could be required to report to a different work site
each day of the week. It was never intended that
travelling time would be paid to workers who report to a
fixed location and who are not required to travel in the
course of their normal duties.
(iv) Apart from the equipment hire firms there are many other
employers involved in the construction industry who do
not pay travelling time except where workers are
required to report to sites, e.g. joinery firms,
electrical contractors, glaziers, builders' suppliers,
etc. The arguments which the Union is using to support
its claim can equally be applied to these firms.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that these type
of firms see anything unjust in paying travelling time
only to those workers who are required to travel to
building sites in their own time.
(v) The Court heard a similar claim some years ago and found
against the union (LCR6569 refers). The Company is of
the view that there have been no developments since that
case was heard which would justify a change in the view
expressed by the Court. Furthermore, any success by the
Union in the present case will lead to a large number of
similar claims not just among equipment hire firms but
also in the other areas mentioned previously.
(vi) Concession of this claim would be the same as a 12.50%
wage rise as far as the Company is concerned and there
must be a serious doubt about the ability of any firm in
the equipment hire business to survive such an increase
in costs.
(vii) The Company is a small firm engaged in the hire of
non-operated plant such as compressors, pedestrian
rollers, builders' dumpers, small mixers etc. None of
its competitors are paying travelling time to employees,
based at the depot. In fact, while most firms in the
industry pay the construction basic rate, very few pay
meal and tool allowances or operate pension and sick pay
scheme as this employer does.
(viii) The workforce has fallen from a peak of twenty a few
years ago to seven in 1987. At the present time the
Company is trading at a loss, with business falling at
about 25% per annum. While wage rounds have always
been honoured, the Company has not had an increase in
its own prices for five years. Right now the Company
is put to the pin of its collar to keep the business
going in the face of bad debts, low demand, poor prices
and severe competition. In many cases the already low
prices charged by the Company have to be discounted
further in order to hold on to customers. The
consequences of a 12.50% increase in labour costs would
eventually result in a further reduction in the
workforce or the introduction of short-time or
temporary lay-offs. The vigorous pursuance of this
claim by the Union is not in the long term interests of
the workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied, on the evidence produced, that the
requirement to travel in this Company does not equate to the
requirement in the Construction Industry and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
7th July, 1987 ---------------
DH/PG Deputy Chairman