Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8838 Case Number: LCR11855 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of 7 van drivers for compensation for additional productivity.
Recommendation:
7. On the basis of the information before it the Court does not
consider that the organisational changes which have so far been
brought about in the section in question are in themselves
sufficient to support the claim for an increase based on increased
productivity. The Court does not therefore recommend concession
of the Unions claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8838 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11855
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 7 van drivers for compensation for
additional productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 7 drivers at its Limerick branch
delivering products to the counties of Limerick, Clare, Galway,
Kerry, Tipperary and parts of County Cork. The drivers starting
time is 9.30 a.m. and in the past the departure time of main-runs
ranged from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. as the orders would not be
ready for despatch until then. As a result a considerable amount
of overtime was worked by the drivers after finishing time in
order to complete deliveries. On occasion short runs would be
carried out while the drivers were awaiting their orders for the
main runs, for which the drivers were paid overtime.
3. In June, 1986 the Company undertook a rationalisation exercise
and made a number of proposals relating to the content of the
drivers work and proposed delayed starting times resulting in a
reduction in overtime, however these proposals were rejected. In
December, 1986 the Company put forward further proposals which
provided for new runs and a reduction in overtime as follows:-
- early morning 'mini' runs to certain customers,
- followed by the main run to service the balance of
the customers from the original run.
4. These proposals were accepted by the drivers on a trial basis
and came into operation from 19th January, 1987. In March, 1987
the Company stated that the new schedule was working well and
proposed that overtime be reduced to a maximum of 50 hours. Local
level meetings were held at which the Union rejected the Company's
proposals and claimed compensation of 47.50 hours at overtime rates
for extra productivity and stating that the drivers would be
reverting back to the original arrangements from 10th August,
1987. The Company's position was that it would not revert back to
the previous run structure and would have an independent
examination of the routes carried out to determine the length of
runs and appropriate overtime levels. No agreement could be
reached and on 18th September, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 18th November, 1987 at which no agreement
could be reached and on 19th January, 1988 the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 12th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Overtime for van crews has always been an integral part of
the job and drivers have always been expected by management to
make themselves available for this overtime. The basic pay of
the drivers is only #137.00 per week and is only acceptable
because of the amount of overtime. It is not reasonable to
expect the drivers to agree to a limit on overtime when they
have no control over the number of hours they work. In all
companies, additional hours/work carried out are paid for by
overtime.
2. The Company has admitted that the Limerick depot is doing
well and that the new runs have been of considerable financial
benefit. The new schedule introduced by the Company increased
the total mileage done by the drivers, and increased the
number of drops and mini-runs without reducing the main-runs
themselves. The result was that the drivers ended up working
much harder and driving up to 200 miles extra per week on an
already heavy schedule, but without additional payment for the
extra productivity given to the Company, while other groups of
workers were benefiting from this. The operation of mini-runs
has over the years been compensated for by payment.
Compensation for the additional work involved should be paid
for at the rate previously paid for such work, this would
equate to 47.50 hours at overtime rate. The increased
productivity gained by the Company would more than pay for the
financial compensation to the drivers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The rationalisation plan was introduced throughout the
organisation in order to counteract the extremely difficult
trading conditions being experienced. Virtually all aspects
of the plan have been achieved throughout the branches of the
organisation. These have included redundancies, loss of
earnings and changes in working hours. The present issue has
been under discussion since June, 1986 and the attitude taken
by the workers has been negative and unconstructive. Limerick
is the only branch where the drivers have refused to perform
any tasks other than driving.
2. The Company has the right to expect workers to carry out
their normal duties during normal working hours rather than
remaining idle as was the case for these drivers in the old
system. The new system is fair and reasonable in the
circumstances, and there is no basis for a claim for a
productivity increase. In addition the drivers, unlike their
colleagues throughout the country, have totally rejected all
suggestions to carry out warehouse activities even at a minor
level.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. On the basis of the information before it the Court does not
consider that the organisational changes which have so far been
brought about in the section in question are in themselves
sufficient to support the claim for an increase based on increased
productivity. The Court does not therefore recommend concession
of the Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th May, 1988 John O'Connell
U.M./M.F. Deputy Chairman