Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89634 Case Number: LCR12629 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SHANNON NAVIGATION (OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS) - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim that Shannon Navigation should continue to supply transport to site for three workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered at length the submissions of the parties the
Court is of the view that under present circumstances there is no
reasonable way in which the Service can provide a vehicle and a
driver to transport the claimants from their home base to their
respective work sites. The claimants benefitted from such a
service when it was feasible but now that it is no longer
practical the Court recommends that the claimants accept the
normal arrangements which apply to their colleagues i.e. that they
make their own travel arrangements and are paid agreed travelling
expenses.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89634 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12629
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SHANNON NAVIGATION (OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim that Shannon Navigation should continue to supply
transport to site for three workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shannon Navigation are responsible for the maintenance of the
river Shannon. It has responsibility for navigation, jetties,
etc. Workers are engaged generally in building and construction.
The service is divided into two units for operational and
administrative purposes. The northern region stretches from
Hudson Bay (the north side of Athlone) and has a base in Rooskey.
Portumna serves as the base for the southern region and as
headquarters for the overall service. The three workers concerned
with the claim (two operatives and one machine driver) are based
in the Portumna region. In 1982 an agreement was drawn up
providing for transport to site and/or travel payments (details
supplied to the Court). The present travel allowances are as
follows:-
0-3 miles = Nil
3-30 miles =#34.65 per week
30 miles or over = #77.24 (non taxable)
Allowance are not paid where transport is provided. Excavator
drivers receive a different allowance of #19.27 per week, build
into their pay and paid whether they travel or not. The three
workers have availed of the travel facility for the last seven
years. Some weeks ago they were advised of the intention of
Shannon Navigation ceasing to provide transport. Local
discussions took place with the union on 30th April, 1989. The
Union were adamant that money was not an issue and irrespective of
the allowances the facts are that the three workers do not have
cars and are unable to drive. The dispute was the subject of a
Labour Court conciliation conference on 13th September, 1989. No
agreement was reached and both parties requested a full Court
hearing. The Court investigated the dispute on 28th September,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENT'S:
3. 1. The existing agreement provides for the operation of two
systems, namely the payment of an allowance or provision of
transport. The three workers have, by decision of the
company, been supplied with transport over the last seven
years.
2. There is no public transport available. The company
cannot guarantee private transport by other workers. With a
little planning they could make use of the Site Supervisors
who are in receipt of mileage allowance and have taken workers
to the sites in the past.
3. None of the workers concerned with the claim can drive
and the consequence of the company decision is that a car must
be purchased and someone must learn how to drive.
4. Depending on site location the loss of personal time
could be up to twenty hours per week, i.e. travelling during
own time.
5. There is an early retirement/redundancy scheme operating
in the public sector. The three workers fear that Management,
fully aware of the impossibility of their proposal from the
point of view of the individuals' circumstances, are hoping to
force resignations directly.
6. The claim is not an attempt to increase current
allowances - even if they were doubled or trebled it would
solve nothing.
7. There are no consequential claims arising from
continuing to provide transport to the three workers.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a fundamental condition of employment on the
Shannon Navigation Service that workers are required to report
to varying work sites. All except the people at the centre of
this dispute comply with the requirement.
2. Allowances are payable to general operatives for
travelling and have been offered to the workers concerned.
This would put them on the same footing as their other
colleagues on Shannon Navigation. They would be better off
than their counterparts engaged on drainage operations who
receive no such allowances.
4. 3. One of the three workers is an excavator driver, who in
addition to being transported to work in the past, has also
been permanently in receipt of a fixed travel allowance of
#19.27 per week. This is paid in recognition of having to
report to changing work sites. It is the same allowance which
is paid to drainage excavator drivers, who also have to report
to varying work sites. Whatever arguments can be advanced in
favour of the other two workers none can be put forward for
this individual.
4. In relation to other individual circumstances, one of
the other two workers was able to report to Shannonbridge
between May 1987 and September, 1988, "under his own steam".
Because of the distance involved, he qualified for the higher
"country money" allowance, while most of the regular travel
only involved payment of the lesser allowance (#34.65 per week
taxable against #77.24 non-taxable).
5. Transport was provided for a number of years up to last
April. Ad-hoc arrangements have applied ever since. There is
no means to continue transporting people to work sites. Over
the years, both the workforce and transport fleet have
gradually diminished. There is no available transport
vehicles or spare transport drivers to drive.
6. From the point of view of economy there is no
justification in continuing with the transporting
arrangements. It would be necessary to purchase at least one
new vehicle, at a cost of some #15,000/#20,000, excluding
running costs. There is no driver to drive it and even if
there was, the expense would not be justified. Two of the
original complement of three transport drivers in the South
Shannon region have left on redundancy. The third driver is
needed for other duties. Travelling time to and from work
sites each day would also be lost.
7. From an operational viewpoint, it is not possible to
always have three workers together in one gang. This would
render transporting arrangements even more difficult.
8. The facility of being transported to and from work was
there for a number of years. The office cannot continue with
the practice, nor does it wish to. It may be considered as
altering the workers conditions of employment. The Office,
strongly rebutes this as it's merely insisting that an even
more fundamental condition be adhered to, one that pre-dated
any travel arrangements, i.e. the requirement on the workers
behalf to report to varying work sites. This is the same
condition which applies to all other workers on the Shannon
Navigation and in other services to the Office.
4. 9. There is plenty of work for the three workers. There is
no question of there being a redundancy situation. Even if
any of them wanted to take redundancy there would be a
problem. By letting any worker go the Office are in fact
declaring the post redundant, which it cannot afford to do
since staff numbers on Shannon Navigation are at an
unacceptable low level. The present position is that the only
work available will require travel.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered at length the submissions of the parties the
Court is of the view that under present circumstances there is no
reasonable way in which the Service can provide a vehicle and a
driver to transport the claimants from their home base to their
respective work sites. The claimants benefitted from such a
service when it was feasible but now that it is no longer
practical the Court recommends that the claimants accept the
normal arrangements which apply to their colleagues i.e. that they
make their own travel arrangements and are paid agreed travelling
expenses.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th November, 1989 -----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman