Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8855 Case Number: LCR11777 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BURMAH CASTROL (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning proposed changes in the system for depot relief.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that in the particular circumstances of
this case, the four depot relief pool staff should be paid #250
each in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8855 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11777
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BURMAH CASTROL (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning proposed changes in the system for depot
relief.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company proposes to discontinue the present system of
depot relief at Galway and New Ross with effect from the 1st May,
1988.
3. These depots are one person operated and at present during
periods of annual leave or sick leave relief staff are sent down
from the Dublin depot. The Company wishes to change this system
to one involving local non-Company relief workers.
4. The Union, however, wishes to retain the present arrangements.
Because of possible redundancies in Dublin the Union does not want
to lose any work traditionally done by Dublin based workers.
5. The parties failed to resolve the issue at local level and
referred the matter to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court on 6th November, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was held
on 17th December, 1987. As no agreement was possible both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 4th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Oil Industry as a whole has had to live with dramatic
changes over the past number of years. The most obvious
manifestation of those changes is the reduction in the
workforce which today is 50% of former numbers. The current
approach to price regulations is likely to have a further
serious impact on job security within the Oil Industry
particularly the smaller companies. The workers concerned
are not prepared to risk any further diminution in the work
available. In terms of total costs involved in the relief
function it is fairly small but very beneficial in terms of
the Company business.
2. The work required of a clerk in either the Galway or New
Ross depots is complex and very critical in terms of customer
service/customer relations. All of the clerks involved are
very experienced, have an extensive product knowledge and
would be very familiar with the requirements of the different
customers. The relief clerk would also have a similar
profile. The relief function rotates among a small number of
clerks and after a couple of stints they too acquire a good
knowledge of the local situation.
3. There are also very serious implications in terms of the
dangerous nature of the product handled which could have
catastrophic consequences if the wrong product was delivered.
There may be a requirement under the Dangerous Substance Act
for an experienced person to assume responsibility.
4. On a pure costing basis it appears that the Company
proposals do not make any sense. It is assumed that the
wages offered to any temporary incumbent would be
approximately #250.00 per week., coupled with the cost of
recruiting and training. Indeed assuming that a different
person has to be recruited each time, these latter costs
could be recurring.
5. The Union has already conceded and implemented a very
effective cost-saving exercise in relation to both the Cork
Depot and Galway/New Ross (details supplied to the Court).
The Cork change has resulted in savings of #708.00 per week
while the new system in Galway/New Ross is achieving savings
of #302.00 per week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The two most significant reasons for eliminating the
present system are the disruption and the cost factors.
Disruption is caused by the fact that the staffing level in
Dublin is appropriate to cover the level of work in Dublin
but if staff are taken out for depot relief, it would
certainly be necessary to replace such absences by the
appointment of a temporary clerk in Dublin. Nobody could
justify a situation where, for example, to cover holiday
relief in New Ross the Company would have to take on a
temporary employee in Dublin to relieve a Dublin clerk to
travel to New Ross to cover holiday or sickness relief in
that depot.
2. The answer, and that proposed by the Company, is that a
local temporary clerical employee would be recruited to cover
holiday relief and unscheduled leave (sickness etc.). The
work required of a depot relief clerk is routine and basic
and certainly does not require somebody who is fully trained
in all the functions of the Dublin clerical section.
3. The minimum number of weeks to be covered in this fashion
would be approximately nine weeks per year (4.5 weeks annual
holiday in each depot) together with whatever sickness or
unscheduled absence may occur. Given that there is a
requirement to hire a temporary replacement in Dublin, it is
quite clear that the cost to the Company of each week of
depot relief is in excess of #500.00. It is estimated that
local relief can be provided at less than one third of these
costs.
4. In the case of unscheduled relief the obvious advantage
of the Company proposal is the elimination of the time lag
involved in providing relief from Dublin compared to local
relief having the capability of being on site within a very
short period of time. Also, a regular local temporary
employee would have a greater local knowledge. The provision
of depot relief by temporary staff was part of the
rationalisation programme.
5. The four distribution clerks in Dublin, in addition to
providing their own holiday relief and sickness cover, also
provide for the lubricants stock controller and fuels
shipping clerk, both specialised jobs, which necessitated
intense training for the distribution clerks. This is
another reason why the Company needs its experienced and
trained personnel at head office.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that in the particular circumstances of
this case, the four depot relief pool staff should be paid #250
each in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th April, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman