Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89585 Case Number: LCR12608 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CHRISTOPHER HUET LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a driver/warehouse operative for compensation for loss of overtime and private use of a Company van.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, having
particular regard to the fact that the worker concerned is the
sole employee who has suffered a specific loss of income as a
result of the changes, recommends that he be compensated for the
losses to the amount of #1,000.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89585 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12608
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CHRISTOPHER HUET LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a driver/warehouse operative
for compensation for loss of overtime and private use of a Company
van.
BACKGROUND:
2. Earlier this year, against a background of several years'
losses, the Company closed down its depots throughout the country
and sold off its delivery vehicles. The delivery function was
contracted out to a courier firm. The Company's three drivers
were offered voluntary redundancy of 3.5 weeks per year of service
plus statutory entitlements. One driver accepted the offer but it
was subsequently withdrawn from the other two on the grounds that
there was sufficient warehouse work available to keep them
employed. The two drivers maintained their basic rates of #158
per week and a bonus of #28 per week, however, they have lost both
overtime and the use of the Company van. The Union claims that
the drivers should have their vans and overtime restored to them.
Failing that the Union claims that the two drivers should be
compensated for the loss of the use of a Company van and
compensated for the loss of overtime, which recently was running
at approximately 10-15 hours per week, (prior to that it was
approximately 4 hours per week). The Company rejected the claim
on the basis that its financial position is very poor and it has
no money available for compensation. The dispute was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 21st June, 1989.
No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
28th August, 1989, and the matter was referred on 29th August,
1989, to the Labour Court, for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 26th September, 1989.
(Since the original claim was lodged one of the two drivers has
left the Company).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The losses sustained by the driver do not occur as a
result of a loss of trade but from the Company's decision to
contract out the delivery function. Indeed, it is possible
that since the contractor may cover less than the available
business, a loss of trade may arise.
2. Against the background of a reduction in the workforce,
redundancies and wage moderation in recent years, it is
unreasonable to expect the driver to sustain such a loss.
This loss creates a significant reduction in his household
budget, which is compounded by the extra transport costs now
imposed.
3. There are many examples where compensation has been paid
for losses deriving from operational changes rather than
losses in trade. Indeed the Court has issued Recommendations
conceding such claims. The Union seeks that the vehicle and
overtime be restored to the driver or that he receive
compensation in respect of his losses as follows:-
(a) #3,359 representing twice the annual value of the
vehicle based on the benefit in kind formula.
(b) Twice the annual value of the overtime, which is
#3,900 if based on the level of overtime over the
last 6 months or #1,217 if based over the last 7.5
years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For several years the Company has experienced poor trading
results. The Company had striven to develop a position in the
market place between various brand names and in its early
years as successful due to price. However, the recession in
the motor trade hit the Company harder than the branded names.
2. The consequence on employment can be seen by the fact that
at its peak employment exceeded 100. By 1983 that figure had
dropped to 85 and again by 1987 the figure was 50. The depths
of the Company's financial position has resulted in the
redundancy of the Managing Director, the Chief Accountant and
the closure of the Company's depots throughout the country
along with the delivery service and manufacture at Windmill
Lane.
3. The claim before the Court relates to the consequences of
restructuring. The Company because it no longer was offering
a delivery service withdrew the vans used for that purpose.
Unlike others in the firm this employee was not made
redundant, he was transferred to the stores.
4. The Company is claiming inability to pay because of its
financial position and restructuring of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, having
particular regard to the fact that the worker concerned is the
sole employee who has suffered a specific loss of income as a
result of the changes, recommends that he be compensated for the
losses to the amount of #1,000.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
20th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.