Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87927 Case Number: LCR11677 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claims for (a) regrading of fork-lift drivers (b) compensation for breach of transport agreement.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
(a) REGRADING OF FORK-LIFT DRIVERS.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(b) COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF TRANSPORT AGREEMENT.
The Court is of the view that the amount of the Company's
offer is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should
be accepted. The Court notes that the "Hired Agreement" does
not stipulate the manner of selecting a "crew" for Saturday
work and therefore recommends that the amount referred to
above be divided between the 14 "crews".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___8th____February,__1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87927 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11677
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CANTRELL & COCHRANE
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) regrading of fork-lift drivers
(b) compensation for breach of transport agreement.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. These claims were both lodged by the Unions in 1987. No
agreement was reached at local negotiations and on 29th October
and 13th November, 1987 the matters were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 24th November, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 4th December, 1987 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 14th January, 1988, a hearing arranged for an earlier date
was unsuitable to one of the parties.
CLAIM (A) REGRADING OF FORK-LIFT DRIVERS.
BACKGROUND:
3. This claim concerns 11 fork-lift drivers who are grade 7. The
Union is claiming they should be regraded to Grade 8 which would
involve additional payment of #3.07 over their present basic rate.
The claim is made because of changes arising from the introduction
of drive-in pallet racking by the Company. The Company rejected
the claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The degree of skill and effort involved in the job and the
increased working height expected of the driver justifies the
claim.
2. Historically the drivers only worked up to three heights,
however they are now expected to work to four pallets high.
Much greater skill and care are now needed to execute the job
correctly.
3. Taking the level of pallets up to four increases the
responsibility and craft needed and should be recognised by an
increase in the grade as claimed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The increased height falls easily within the skills range
for the current grade 7 paid. This grade includes drivers of
7 ton and 10 ton vehicles on deliveries throughout the city
traffic.
5. 2. The Company had offered to work study the new situation to
examine the time implications of the operation. This was
rejected.
3. The new pallet racking has been found not only to be safe
but safer than the previous method of free standing pallet
stacking.
4. The rates of pay compare favourably internally with other
operative grades and externally with our competitors.
5. The workers are adequately compensated for the skill
levels required in the new operation. Any decision to
elevate them above people with similar skills requirements
would jeopardise the validity of the grade structure.
CLAIM (B) COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF TRANSPORT AGREEMENT.
BACKGROUND:
6. This claim concerns 28 transport workers. On Friday, 23rd
October, 1987 the distribution manager decided, due to undelivered
orders on 21st and 22nd October and to four unexpected absentees
on 23rd October, to contact a third party to arrange for one hired
truck and crew to cover what he considered to be an emergency
situation in the context of clause 4 of the "Hired Agreement".
The Union did not accept an emergency existed and claimed that the
Company were in breach of the 'Hired Agreement' and that the
workers should be compensated by the payment to each crew of the
wages which would have been paid to one crew for Saturday work if
the normal procedure had been followed. The Company rejected the
claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The 'Hired Agreement' between the Company and the Unions
relates to the use of outside hired transport and its
subsequent effect on the workers. In this instance the
Company brought in hired transport for Friday work which
displaced the workers in clear breach of the agreement.
2. If the agreement as written is not honoured, and seen to
be so, then all agreements written by the Company will be
undermined.
3. This issue is one of extreme importance as the workforce
see this case as one where the Employer must be seen to be
corrected for their breach of agreement.
4. The situation on 23rd October, 1987 was not an emergency.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has accepted, with hindsight, that the written
terms of the Agreement in relation to emergency overtime was
not fulfilled by the Company. Therefore the Company agreed
that the single Saturday load lost to a delivery crew should
be paid despite the fact that the Company had already paid for
its delivery.
8. 2. The Union has rejected the Company's offer and instead it
now claims a half day's pay for all crews present on the
Friday in question. This would amount to approximately 14
crews as the Company has agreed to fully compensate for the
loss sustained. The claim is totally incomprehensible and has
to be rejected by the Company.
3. There was no premeditated attempt by the Company to breach
the spirit of the Agreement. The decision on the morning in
question was an 'on the spot' operational one designed to
avoid disappointing customers for a second time in as many
days.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
(a) REGRADING OF FORK-LIFT DRIVERS.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(b) COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF TRANSPORT AGREEMENT.
The Court is of the view that the amount of the Company's
offer is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should
be accepted. The Court notes that the "Hired Agreement" does
not stipulate the manner of selecting a "crew" for Saturday
work and therefore recommends that the amount referred to
above be divided between the 14 "crews".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___8th____February,__1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman