Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87887 Case Number: LCR11635 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS' LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims on behalf of five employees for compensation for loss of earnings and for succession rights.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Compensation for one driver for loss of earnings in
moving from Artic. to Delivery Driving:
4. The Court will examine the merits of this claim in the light
of losses actually incurred one year after the changeover.
Claim (b) Compensation for four drivers for loss of earnings in
moving from Driving to Indoor Work:
5. The Court will examine the merits of this claim in the light
of losses actually incurred one year after the changeover.
Claim (c) Claim to succession rights:
6. The Court decides that in opting for alternative jobs in a
redundancy situation, the drivers have surrendered their rights to
return to driving. The Court recommends accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87887 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11635
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS' LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of five employees for compensation for loss
of earnings and for succession rights.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1984 rationalisation proposals concerning the
Company's transport operations were presented to the Unions by the
management. As a result of failure to agree on this matter a nine
week dispute took place in early 1985. A return to work was
achieved under Labour Court Recommendation No. 9650 dated 1st
April, 1985. This recommendation outlined future manning levels
in transport. A letter of clarification from the Court dated 29th
September, 1987 stated that "drivers in the North Mall have the
right to remain as drivers on a personal basis".
3. In 1987 the Company sought further rationalisation and a
voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to all employees. As a
result of the achievement of a number of redundancies one
articulated lorry driver was moved to delivery work and four
delivery drivers (3 permanent and 1 relief) were moved to indoor
plant work. The Union sought compensation for loss of earnings
for these five individuals as well as succession rights. With
regard to the loss of earnings the following table sets out the
relevant figures.
Delivery drivers
Previous Current
Basic Salary # 9,561 # 9,091
Plus Payment # 1,631 # 1,631
Service Pay # 62 # 62
Total ------- -------
#11,254 #10,784
Estimated Overtime # 3,326 -
--------
Annual Earnings 86/87 #14,580 -
Articulated lorry driver
Previous Current
Basic Salary # 9,712 #9,561
Plus Payment # 1,631 #1,631
Service Pay # 62 # 62
-------- --------
#11,405 #11,254
Estimated Overtime #13,516 -
--------
Annual Earnings 86/87 #24,921 -
No agreement was reached at local level on the matter of loss of
earnings and succession rights and it was referred on 28th
October, 1987 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences were held on 4th and 18th November, 1987.
Again, no agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a
full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 3rd
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned will sustain substantial losses as
a result of the change. Apart from the drop in basic pay a
large percentage of earnings was made up of overtime. This is
no longer available. Another element which must be considered
is the loss of subsistence payments as #45 per week was
previously available to delivery drivers under this heading.
(The artic. driver's expenses have dropped from #64 to #45).
The Union is seeking adequate compensation to all five for the
losses sustained.
2. Under Labour Court Recommendation No. 9650 manning
levels were agreed. The Recommendation stated, in relation to
North Mall, that "the two short service drivers will be
assimilated on a relief basis with succession rights". The
Court's letter of clarification stated "drivers in the North
Mall have the right to remain as drivers on a personal basis".
The Union is seeking re-affirmation of succession rights.
3. The Union does not accept the Company's contention that
survival or loss of business was the main reason for
rationalisation. Cost saving was the main objective. In
fact, outside hauliers have been used to meet demand since the
introduction of the new manning level.
4. The Union rejects any contention that these workers
claimed the jobs of other thus driving the others out of
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Because of changes in trade and fall off in sales it was
necessary to alter the structure of the transport fleet at
North Mall. This involved a reduction in personnel. The
workers concerned, because of their seniority, claimed jobs in
other areas. It must be remembered that the changes were
brought about by market pressures.
2. If the Court's letter of 29th September, 1987, is taken
to mean that the workers concerned have a right to resume as
drivers in the future if driving jobs become available
consideration must be given to the fact that these workers
displaced others rather than be made redundant. They
therefore now enjoy the terms of the jobs claimed.
3. The Company agrees that some compensation for a small
percentage of loss of overtime may be warranted. Loss of meal
allowance is not a compensatable item. It does not consider
that succession rights arise because of the reduction in
actual driving jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) Compensation for one driver for loss of earnings in
moving from Artic. to Delivery Driving:
4. The Court will examine the merits of this claim in the light
of losses actually incurred one year after the changeover.
Claim (b) Compensation for four drivers for loss of earnings in
moving from Driving to Indoor Work:
5. The Court will examine the merits of this claim in the light
of losses actually incurred one year after the changeover.
Claim (c) Claim to succession rights:
6. The Court decides that in opting for alternative jobs in a
redundancy situation, the drivers have surrendered their rights to
return to driving. The Court recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
11th January, 1988 ---------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman