Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87182 Case Number: LCR11184 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EAST GALWAY DAIRIES - and - ITGWU |
Claims, on behalf of approximately 33 drivers and general operatives, in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the view that management's offer in respect of
the 26th wage round is reasonable and should be accepted by the
trade union.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation for the drivers concerned.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87182 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11184
CC861914 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11184
Parties: EAST GALWAY DAIRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims, on behalf of approximately 33 drivers and general
operatives, in respect of the 26th wage round.
General background:
2. The Company, which operates within the Mid-west Co-operative
group, is involved in the processing and distribution of liquid
milk, butter and related dairy products. It employs a total of
approximately 33 workers.
3. The terms of the 25th wage round expired for the workers
concerned on the 31st of August, 1986. In September, 1986, the
Union, on behalf of the workers concerned, served a number of
claims on the Company in respect of the 26th wage round, the
following three of which it subsequently pursued:
(a) a pay increase of 12% for 12 months,
(b) an increase in the Christmas bonus and,
(c) the introduction of a drivers' allowance.
In the course of negotiations at local level the Company made an
offer on claims (a) and (b) and rejected claim (c). The offer was
rejected by the Union and the matters were referred, on 24th
November, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
At a conciliation conference, held on 10th February, 1987, the
Company made the following offer in full and final settlement
of all claims:
(a) an 18 month 26th round wage agreement,
(b) wages to be adjusted as follows: #5 basic pay increase
for 9 months and a further #6 basic pay increase for 9
months and,
(c) a #20 increase in Christmas bonus (from #30 to #50).
The package offer was acceptable to the Union, provided that the
claim for the drivers' allowance was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. This claim related to the
fact that five of the Company's drivers are not allowed to bring
their trucks home when they finish their rounds while the
remainder of the drivers are entitled to do so. The Union is
seeking the payment of a truck drivers allowance of #35 per week
to each of the five driver's who are not allowed to bring their
trucks home. This was unacceptable to the Company on the basis
that the package on offer was in settlement of all claims. As no
agreement could be reached the parties agreed to refer the matter
to the Labour Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 8th
April, 1987, in Galway.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Of the thirteen (approximately) drivers employed by the
Company as roundsmen, eight are allowed to bring home
their trucks, with fuel provided by the Company, while
five drivers are not. These five workers have sought
the extension of this facility to them or alternatively
a compensatory payment, but this has been rejected by
the Company. By not treating the workers concerned in
the same way as their colleagues in relation to travel
costs, the Company is discriminating against these
workers.
(ii) The Union feels that the most appropriate way of
resolving the matter would be through the payment of a
truck driving allowance to the workers concerned. In
this regard, the Union would refer to a Labour Court
hearing in 1985 concerning a claim for an increase in
the drivers' rate of pay which was rejected by the
Company on the basis that the facility available to
some drivers of bringing home their trucks was worth an
additional #35 per week. Therefore, the Union is
claiming the payment of an allowance of this amount to
the workers concerned.
(iii) Of the five drivers involved, four have very early
starting times (details supplied to the Court) when
there is no public transport or other means available
of getting to work.
(iv) The Union has not increased the Company's average
figure of #35 per week referred to at the Labour Court
hearing in 1985 in relation to the facility in question
and is prepared to discuss the matter further with the
Company with a view to reaching a compromise on the
matter. This is a fair and reasonable approach but the
Company has rejected in principle the concept of paying
an allowance.
(v) The facility to bring vehicles home is an integral part
of earnings which must apply to all drivers in the
Company involved on roundsmens' duties. Therefore, the
claim should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company is operating in a very competitive market
and is doing all it can to reduce costs to remain in
business. It is not in a position to pass on any of
its increased costs to its customers. It must ensure
that it does not lose any of its competitive edge over
its competitors and in that context, it is clear that
the scope for a wage increase is limited. In these
circumstances, the Company's offer on pay is generous.
(b) The offer by the Company to increase the Christmas
bonus by #20 is fair and reasonable.
(c) The right of some drivers to take home their trucks
when they finish work is a privilege which has existed
for these employees for a considerable period of time
and was related to their particular circumstances in
the Company (details supplied to the Court). This
privilege only involves using the truck travelling to
and from work and cannot be used on personal business.
(d) The Company has had reservations about the position of
taking home trucks for some time, particularly having
regard to a 450% increase in insurance premia over the
past 4 years, but it was unable to change the practice
for existing drivers given the long-standing nature of
the arrangement. However, since 1984, it has recruited
drivers on the specific understanding that they will
not be allowed use of the vans after their deliveries
are made. In fact, the Company needs and uses the vans
when they are left back in the mornings.
(e) The workers concerned were employed by the Company on
the express understanding that they could not take
their trucks home and that they were in a position to
provide their own transport to take them to and from
work, otherwise they would not have been employed. The
Company cannot now pay these workers an allowance for
that stipulation and therefore, the claim cannot be
sustained.
(f) Concession of the claim could have repercussive effects
by way of similar claims from other groups of workers.
(g) The offer by the Company at conciliation is
non-negotiable and was made on the understanding that
it would be accepted and would settle all claims.
Therefore it should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is of the view that management's offer in respect of
the 26th wage round is reasonable and should be accepted by the
trade union.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation for the drivers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald.
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th May, 1987.
T.McC./J.C.