Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89845 Case Number: LCR12707 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SHOWERINGS LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION AND AMALGAMATED;TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Interpretation of the Company/Union 1974 Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered all the evidence both verbal and written the
Court is of the view that the terms of the 1974 Agreement have no
relevance to the fork-lift drivers.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89845 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12707
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SHOWERINGS LTD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION AND AMALGAMATED
TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of the Company/Union 1974 Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1974 the Company and Union negotiated an agreement
relating to the unloading of vehicles carrying incoming goods.
The Agreement detailed situations requiring the provision of
helpers for certain categories of transport. In June, 1988,
negotiations on a re-structuring programme concluded successfully
for the general factory body (production/distribution) of the
Company. The re-structuring programme provided for phased
increases totalling #9.50 per week for fork-lift drivers - grade
4. Further discussions concerning transport drivers are ongoing.
A successful conclusion to the negotiations will result in the
Company/Union 1974 Agreement being discarded.
2. On 17th October, 1989 a dispute arose in the Company when a
fork-lift driver refused to unload a truck carrying incoming raw
materials. The worker sought a helper for the unloading
operation. The Company refused to provide one. The dispute
eventually resulted in unofficial industrial action being taken by
the fork-lift crew. Following discussions, the workers resumed
duty on 19th October, 1989. The parties agreed to refer the
dispute to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The
Union maintain that with the exception of bulk carriers, the 1974
Agreement applies to all transport. The Company insist that the
1974 Agreement does not cover fork-lift drivers, that it is an
agreement relating specifically to the transport department.
Fork-lift drivers are not part of that area. The Company also
contends that helpers are not provided for vehicles carrying raw
materials to the plant. The dispute was the subject of a Labour
Court conciliation conference on 10th November, 1989. No
agreement was reached and the Union requested a full Court
hearing. The Company agreed and the Court investigated the
dispute in Waterford on 14th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1974 Agreement was negotiated with the Company's
transport manager and two shop stewards - one from the
transport area and one from the general factory area. The
agreement made it necessary for outside hauliers to have a
helper and driver before any goods would be loaded or unloaded
from their vehicles. The operation of the agreement was the
responsibility of management but in reality its application on
a daily basis was the function of fork-lift drivers.
2. Recently the Company have entered into negotiations on a
proposal to introduce one man operations on lorries, thus
eliminating the position of helper. Negotiations include
proposals to terminate the 1974 Agreement. In return for
acceptance of the one man vehicle operation, drivers rates of
pay will increase and all personnel in transport will receive
a lump sum payment. Fork-lift drivers should also receive a
payment for the elimination of helpers. It is they who have
been responsible for this operation down through the years.
3. The one man operation system would change the practice
under which fork-lift drivers operate. Apart from safety
hazards, they will have to load and unload without helper
assistance.
4. Fork-lift drivers have worked in accordance with the
1974 Agreement since its introduction. If the Company are
seeking its termination, there must be negotiations and
agreement with fork-lift drivers. They were represented
through the general factory shop steward on discussions for
the introduction of the agreement and, accordingly, they must
be part of any negotiations for its elimination.
5. The Court is requested to recommend that the Company
enter into discussions with the fork-lift driver section with
a view to the negotiation of settlement terms acceptable to
both sides.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company fleet is run on a two-man crew basis. Under
the 1974 Agreement a helper is consistently provided. Bulk
tankers and vans (4 ton GVW) are single driver operations by
agreement. A helper is not provided for vehicles carrying raw
materials to the plant.
4. 2. The 1974 Agreement relates specifically to transport
driving staff. The former shop steward representing transport
staff was party to the agreement. He confirms that it only
covers transport driving staff. He also confirms that the
agreement did not or does not relate to the role of fork-lift
drivers. It is accepted that, down through the years,
transport shop stewards have sought full compliance by the
Company to the terms of the 1974 Agreement.
3. The duty of a fork-lift driver is to move product/goods
as required by management. The provision or non provision of
a helper does not impinge in any way on their duties.
4. Fork-lift drivers have already received an increase of
#9.50 per week under the general factory restructuring
programme which was successfully concluded in June, 1988.
There is absolutely no basis to the Union claim. It is mere
opportunism by fork-lift drivers to seek further reward on
foot of an agreement which does not relate to them and which
is about to be abolished under negotiations on one-man
driving. It is strikingly coincidental that the question of
interpretation of the 1974 Agreement arose at a time when
negotiations on one-man driving are near conclusion.
5. Concession of the Union's claim will result in other
groups seeking compensation in lieu of the 1974 Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered all the evidence both verbal and written the
Court is of the view that the terms of the 1974 Agreement have no
relevance to the fork-lift drivers.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th January, 1990 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman