Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88928 Case Number: LCR12216 Section / Act: S67 Parties: VAN LEER (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of driving duties.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the claimant was covered by the
Flexibility Agreement of 1984 which was reinforced by the
1987/1988 Agreement. The Court has noted that his earnings will
be maintained in his new position. The Court does not, therefore,
recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88928 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12216
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: VAN LEER (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of
driving duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company is engaged in the manufacture of steel drums. The
claimant has approximately thirty years service with the company.
He commenced employment as a general operator and for the past
nine years he has been performing driving duties in addition to
some general operator duties. In the late 1970s and early 1980s a
high percentage of his time was spent on driving duties. In 1984
the Company underwent a rationalisation programme. As part of
this programme an agreement was drawn up between the company and
the workers which contained the following flexibility clause:-
"Employees are employed on the understanding that they are
prepared to undertake the various classes of work available
in the factory and that they may be transferred from
department to department".
In 1988 the company underwent further rationalisation. The
company indicated to the worker that driving duties would no
longer exist for him, as a result of the rationalisation and that
he would be spending all his time on general operator duties. The
worker was dissatisfied with this and the matter was the subject
of local level discussion. On 27th April, 1988 the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and a
conciliation conference took place on 29th July, 1988. At this
conference the possibility of a redundancy settlement was
discussed but agreement on this basis could not be reached. The
worker then sought compensation for the loss of driving duties.
The company was not prepared to make any such payment. The matter
was referred on 30th September, 1988, to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 22nd December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is seeking compensation for loss of driving
duties. However, his preference would be to resume driving
duties. He does not accept that his driving job has become
redundant. The truck which he drove is currently idle while
outside contractors are carrying out his driving work.
2. The worker finds it difficult to adapt to the
confinement of factory work after having spent a long period
in an open environment while driving. He feels that this
change has had a detrimental effect on his health.
3. The loss of driving duties means a considerable
financial loss to the worker due to loss of overtime and
expenses. The union estimates this loss at approximately #85
per week.
4. The redundancy settlement offered was unacceptable due
to the fact that the company placed a limit of twelve years
service on the terms available.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was originally employed by the company as a
general operator. He subsequently took up driving duties.
Under the 1984 flexibility arrangement all operators were
required to be wholly flexible. Therefore, the worker
accepted in 1984 that he was fully flexible between his
general operator duties and his driving duties.
2. It is not economical to maintain a driving function in
the Company. The worker now has the option of carrying out
his duties as general operator at the same level of earnings.
The claim for loss of earnings has no foundation since the
same rate of pay, both basic rate and bonus, is available to
him as driver or operator. The worker will, therefore, retain
his earnings and indeed have the potential to improve them.
During the tax year ended April 1988 only three employee
operators out of a total of seventeen received a smaller gross
pay than this worker (details supplied).
3. The worker disputed the fact that his driving duties
were redundant. However, when a redundancy package was
offered to him as per the redundancy agreement dated 18th
December 1987, the claimant opted not to accept the offer and
to proceed with his claim for compensation for loss of driving
duties.
4. On the acceptance of the flexibility arrangement in 1984
compensation was paid to the worker. Any compensation now
made to him for loss of driving duties would only serve to
make such a payment twice. This would create major industrial
relations problems within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the claimant was covered by the
Flexibility Agreement of 1984 which was reinforced by the
1987/1988 Agreement. The Court has noted that his earnings will
be maintained in his new position. The Court does not, therefore,
recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
17th January, 1989 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman