Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88440 Case Number: LCR11962 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Interpretation of the Hired Transport Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. In the context of the 1985 Hired Agreement negotiated by the
parties, the Court is satisfied that the term crew means a two
person crew.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88440 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11962
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of the Hired Transport Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Over the years Hired Agreements have operated in the Company
covering the use of hired transport. The most recent Agreement,
(September, 1985) followed on a Company Rationalisation Programme
(C.R.P.) and states:-
" For the purpose of this Agreement the Company will have
14 service delivery trucks operating prior to the
introduction of planned hired transport. These vehicles
will be made up of Cantrell and Cochrane vehicles plus
rented if necessary. " (Clause 4)
" This agreement is based on an operating headcount of 14
service crews and may be affected by the finally agreed
headcount. " (Clause 11)
The Union interprets that "14 service crews" is equivalent to 28
workers (i.e.: a crew must consist of two persons) while the
Company interprets that a crew may consist of only one person.
The Union states therefore that 28 workers must be engaged on the
road prior to the use of hired transport while the Company claims
that the figure may be lower. No agreement being reached at local
level, the matter was referred, on 13th June, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 16th June, 1988 but again no agreement was
reached. The issue was then referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 22nd June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Agreement was negotiated by the Unions with the
intention of protecting jobs. For this reason the number of
vehicles and crews was specified. The Agreement was intended
and understood by the workforce to ensure employment for 28
Cantrell and Cochrane employees on service work if outside
transport is required.
2. The C.R.P. specifies that 39 permanent workers are
guaranteed work on the road. This figure is not always
maintained, by mutual agreement, provided hired transport is
not required.
3. The term "crew" has always been used by the Company to
mean two persons except where specifically stated otherwise.
4. The interim agreement which provided for 18 service
vehicles in practice meant 18 drivers, 18 conductors and two
extra workers, a total of 38 workers.
5. The Company, in previous situations, never automatically
assumed the right to operate one person vehicles. Agreement
with the Unions was sought in such situations (details
supplied).
6. Labour Court Recommendation No. 11677 dated 8th February,
1988 related to another aspect of the Hired Transport
Agreement. The Company did not challenge the Unions'
reference to 28 people at that time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the majority of operating situations a crew is made up
of two employees. However, this need not always be the case.
At no time during the drafting of the Agreement was there any
concentration on the definition of "crew" nor did the Union
seek to clarify this issue.
2. The guarantee of work on the road for all outdoor
employees applies whether hired transport is on the premises
or not. Therefore the Company is committed during a period of
hired transport to put all permanent employees, on site, out
on the road. The current operation of Clause 4 of the
Agreement cannot therefore adversely affect permanent outdoor
employees.
3. While the Union has stated that it is not trying by this
claim to improve the position of permanent outdoor stand-ins
from the warehouse and production departments, these workers
can be the only beneficiaries if the claim is successful since
permanent outdoor employees are already guaranteed work on the
road.
4. 4. The claim will add increased operating costs to an area
where excessive costs already exist when compared to sister
companies and national competitors. Since it increases costs
the claim is in contravention of the Programme for National
Recovery.
5. The Company is concerned that normal industrial relations
practice in relation to Clause 7 of the Hired Agreement was
not accepted by the Union, i.e. that "normal working" or the
status quo would apply in the event of any dispute. The
Union refused to allow the existing method of operation of the
Hired Agreement to continue during discussions.
6. The Union has waited for over two years to bring this
claim. In the interim the Agreement has operated as
originally agreed. The Company has kept 14 trucks operating
during periods of hired transport. The number of outdoor
people utilised on a daily basis has been determined by the
"on the road guarantee" and the load configuration of the day.
This occasionally required a one man crew.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the context of the 1985 Hired Agreement negotiated by the
parties, the Court is satisfied that the term crew means a two
person crew.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___July,____1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman