Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88320 Case Number: LCR11934 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ARTANE SERVICE STATION LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of four console operators/sales assistants in Sillogue service station, for compensation arising from the transfer of the station to a licencee operation.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the claimants be compensated on the
same basis as other employees of the Company involved in transfers
to agency arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement of October, 1987.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88320 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11934
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ARTANE SERVICE STATION LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four console operators/sales assistants in
Sillogue service station, for compensation arising from the
transfer of the station to a licencee operation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Sillogue service station was operated directly by the Company
until July, 1987. On the 17th July the station was transferred
over to a licencee. The Union claims that no formal notification
was given to either it or the employees of this change. This is
strongly denied by the Company. The Union was concurrently
involved in negotiations with the Company concerning the
change-over of service stations within the group to an agency
arrangement. In October, 1987, agreement was reached on the
issue, the terms of which included the payment of compensation to
those transferring to the agency arrangement. Employees were
given alternative employment with the agents and their service and
other conditions of employment were maintained. The agreement
also included a "dissolution" payment which was paid as follows:
- those working 35 hours per week and over £200 per year
of service
- between 26 and 34 hours per week (incl.) £80 per year
of service
- between 10 and 25 hours per week (incl.) £50 per year
of service.
In addition, one week's basic pay was paid.
3. The Union sought the application of these terms for the four
claimants but this was rejected by the Company. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court but the
Company declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference
and the Union subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing beforehand to accept the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 10th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union contends that if the Company is prepared to pay
compensation to employees who were transferring over to
agents then employees transferring over to licencees should be
afforded at least as favourable treatment. It is important to
point out that those who transferred to agents still retained
a fairly positive link with the Company. For instance, the
terms of the Company/Union Agreement would still apply to
them. Staff changing to a licencee would initially retain
their pay and conditions but there is not the same guarantee
for the future, compared to the staff in the agency operation.
2. The Company will contend that other stations have changed
to licencee and no compensation has been paid. The Union
rejects this argument on the basis that it did not have any
members in any of the stations involved and, therefore, was
not in a position to negotiate compensation. However, in
November, 1984, when the Company transferred its site in
Portlaoise over to a licencee in an adjoining premises one
member was paid redundancy (four times the Act) and was also
given the option of taking up work with the licencee.
3. The Company recently announced that the service station in
Clondalkin would be transferred to a licencee and this has
already been the subject of a conciliation conference as there
are two Union members involved. It is clear, therefore, that
the Union has involved itself in the few cases where members
have been affected.
4. When Texaco transferred two service stations over to
licencees last December, the employees transferring were
compensated with a lump sum of £200 per year of service plus
one week's basic pay. Those who opted for redundancy received
five weeks' pay per year of service.
5. Texaco offered these terms to those transferring on the
basis that Esso had set a precedent with the compensation paid
to staff for transferring over to the agents. The Union
argued at the time that it was not the same as transferring to
a licencee and that the terms should be improved upon.
However, the settlement made with Texaco does indicate an
acceptance on its part that there is a considerable change in
the position of those employees affected. The Union fails to
see why Esso, the market leaders in the petrol industry in
Ireland, should treat its employees in a less favourable
manner. Irrespective of whether the staff are transferring to
an agent or a licencee they are no longer part of the direct
Esso organisation and therefore compensation should be
considered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. On the 17th July, 1987, Sillogue service station
transferred from being operated as a Company owned service
station (Artane Service Station Ltd.) to a licencee site.
This was the last of the twelve sites that went from being
Company owned/Company operated to a licencee arrangement. In
each and every site the staff were transferred and obligations
pertaining to them arising from their existing employment were
transferred to the transferree. Prior to and during the
transfer it was made clear to the licencee that the rights,
obligations, terms, conditions and years of service currently
enjoyed by the staff would be transferred and must be
observed. The licencee confirmed that this would be done.
2. It had been made known to the staff by the Manager at
Sillogue service station a number of months prior to July,
1987, that the Company was going to transfer the site to a
licencee and that the Company would ensure that the jobs were
secure and that all staff rights and obligations would be
transferred. The two full time staff had this position
confirmed by the Company's Area Retail Manager.
3. At no stage prior to or during the transfer to the
licencee did the staff voice any objections or seek
compensation. It was not until late August, 1987 that the
Union advised Management that the staff at Sillogue service
station were Union members and that compensation for them
following their transfer to a licensee operation was being
sought. In the eleven sites already transferred to licensee
no compensation was sought or paid.
4. In the case of Sillogue service station the Company was
not aware that any of the staff were members of the I.T.G.W.U.
and at no stage prior to August, 1987 had the I.T.G.W.U.
informed the Company that the staff were members of the Union.
Therefore it is the Company's attitude that there is no case
to answer as all the claimants' rights and obligations
existing at the time of the transfer were transferred to the
transferree. The Company would further point out that should
the licencee fail to operate the site for whatever reason the
Company will appoint a new licencee with the same rights and
obligations pertaining to the existing staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the claimants be compensated on the
same basis as other employees of the Company involved in transfers
to agency arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement of October, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
7th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.