Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89628 Case Number: LCR12768 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W.J. DWAN & SONS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rationalisation.
Recommendation:
3. (1) Having considered the submissions made and the arguments
of the parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that
the difficulties have arisen in the main, by reason of
the additional work being made available to the staff at
Thurles. Having regard to the conditions under which
much of the work has to be carried out, the Court takes
the view that the Company must have the facility to hire
outside transport, in particular rigid trucks, when
required. In the light of the Company's assurances,
regarding the maintenance of the present fleet level, and
continuity of employment for the transport staff
concerned, taken in conjunction with the Company's own
interest in control of transport costs, which acts as a
disincentive to the abuse of expensive hired transport,
the Court does not consider any more elaborate safeguards
are required than those already proposed by the Company.
The Court therefore recommends that the workers concerned
accept all hired transport under the terms of clause 2.7
of the 1987 Agreement.
(2) On the matter of the worker, nominally transferred to
stores under the new fleet manning system, it is the view
of the Court that since the Company is not, in his
opinion, able to offer him suitable alternative
employment, there is no inhibition on the Company
offering him redundancy terms similar to those offered in
other depots, and this the Court recommends should he so
choose.
(3) Finally, on the question raised at the hearing, of the
Company's possible use of outside carriers to depress the
earnings of transport staff generally, by means of
amended scheduling, since the co-operation of these staff
is clearly essential to the efficiency and
competitiveness of the operation, there is no obvious
reason why they should do so. However since the fear is
clearly present the Court recommends that as a means of
reassurance, that the Company undertake, one year after
the workers acceptance of the terms of (1) above, that
they review the earnings of all workers involved in the
amended transport arrangements, and to compensate those
who have sustained losses directly attributable to the
introduction of hired transport, on terms similar to
those which apply in similar circumstances in industry
generally.
A similar review should take place for the worker
referred to in paragraph (2) above should he decide to
remain in employment, and to other former relief drivers
whose earnings have been diminished by reason of his
transfer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89628 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12768
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W.J. DWAN & SONS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rationalisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. With reference to the Court's investigation of 23rd March,
1990 into the above dispute, the following is the recommendation
of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. (1) Having considered the submissions made and the arguments
of the parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that
the difficulties have arisen in the main, by reason of
the additional work being made available to the staff at
Thurles. Having regard to the conditions under which
much of the work has to be carried out, the Court takes
the view that the Company must have the facility to hire
outside transport, in particular rigid trucks, when
required. In the light of the Company's assurances,
regarding the maintenance of the present fleet level, and
continuity of employment for the transport staff
concerned, taken in conjunction with the Company's own
interest in control of transport costs, which acts as a
disincentive to the abuse of expensive hired transport,
the Court does not consider any more elaborate safeguards
are required than those already proposed by the Company.
The Court therefore recommends that the workers concerned
accept all hired transport under the terms of clause 2.7
of the 1987 Agreement.
(2) On the matter of the worker, nominally transferred to
stores under the new fleet manning system, it is the view
of the Court that since the Company is not, in his
opinion, able to offer him suitable alternative
employment, there is no inhibition on the Company
offering him redundancy terms similar to those offered in
other depots, and this the Court recommends should he so
choose.
(3) Finally, on the question raised at the hearing, of the
Company's possible use of outside carriers to depress the
earnings of transport staff generally, by means of
amended scheduling, since the co-operation of these staff
is clearly essential to the efficiency and
competitiveness of the operation, there is no obvious
reason why they should do so. However since the fear is
clearly present the Court recommends that as a means of
reassurance, that the Company undertake, one year after
the workers acceptance of the terms of (1) above, that
they review the earnings of all workers involved in the
amended transport arrangements, and to compensate those
who have sustained losses directly attributable to the
introduction of hired transport, on terms similar to
those which apply in similar circumstances in industry
generally.
A similar review should take place for the worker
referred to in paragraph (2) above should he decide to
remain in employment, and to other former relief drivers
whose earnings have been diminished by reason of his
transfer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
5th April, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.