Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90682 Case Number: LCR13133 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the use of outside haulage contractors.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it does
seem to the Court that there was insufficient consultation with
the staff concerned before the Company decided to use outside
hauliers to augment its transport arrangements. However, having
heard the Company's reasons for adopting this course of action the
Court recommends that the Union accepts the implementation of the
contracted arrangements for a period of six months on the
understanding that the operation will be reviewed thereafter in
the light of the experience of both workers and management.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90682 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13133
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the use of outside haulage contractors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of shower units for
both the home and export market. It employs two drivers who
operate an articulated truck and a van. The articulated truck is
used for long haul deliveries and the van is used for deliveries
in the Dublin/local area. The Company is situated in
Bailieborough, Co. Cavan.
3. Over the past two years the Company has used, on occasions, an
outside haulier to assist it in its deliveries. In October, 1990,
the Company notified the Union that because of present trading
difficulties it was extending the use of the haulage contractor as
it was increasing deliveries to customers to meet demands in the
marketplace.
4. The Union objected to the Company's proposal on the basis that
the extra runs could be done by the spare driver with a company
vehicle and that the contractor engaged by the Company was
employing non-union labour. The spare driver is engaged in
factory operative duties and covers for the full-time drivers when
they are on holidays, sick leave, etc..
5. Following a meeting at local level the Union indicated it
would co-operate with the extension for 6 months provided the
haulier joined the Union. This proposal was not acceptable to the
Company and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 7th November, 1990 following a decision by the
workers not to co-operate with the haulier in loading and
unloading vehicles. A conciliation conference was held on 15th
November, 1990. As no agreement was reached the parties consented
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 29th November, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is experiencing adverse trading circumstances
which have recently resulted in lay-offs. It is losing its
market share to imports. In order to compete more effectively
the Company decided it was necessary to increase the frequency
of deliveries to its customers. Because of this the Company
was faced with two options either buy a van and hire another
driver or contract out the work. The Company decided on the
latter as it was the most cost effective.
2. The hiring of contractors is a traditional feature of the
business. The present contractor has five years involvement
with the Company in both delivering materials and carrying
product from the plant. No problems were experienced prior to
this.
3. The jobs of direct employees of the Company are not
effected by the use of the contractor.
4. The contractors have a constitutional right to associate
or disassociate which means they have the right to join or not
to join a Union. The Company will not be involved in blacking
non-union contractors; this would be as unjust as blacking
union contractors.
5. Management must have the right to manage the Company and
make commercial decisions on the methods of doing
business/staff levels, etc, especially where this does not
adversely affect existing employees, and especially in the
light of the Company's present trading difficulties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The extra runs should be done by the spare driver with a
Company vehicle and as the haulier is non-union he represents
a threat to the future of the existing transport crews. The
workers are not convinced that it is less viable for the
Company to lease, hire, rent or buy a vehicle than to hire a
haulier.
2. The Union is in favour of providing a better service for
customers if it is needed to stave off competition. However,
the Union is not convinced that this service can be better
provided by a haulier. The Company cannot point to any
complaint by its transport department, on the other hand,
there have been incidents of damaged goods as a result of
careless handling by hauliers.
3. The Company have argued that the revenue from return loads
has assisted the haulier to undercut the cost of load delivery
by the Company. The Union considers that it is quite within
the scope of the Company to plan deliveries in such a way as
to allow for collection of many of its own raw materials
requirements.
4. Experience of dealing with contractors, hauliers or
privatisation of services has demonstrated that, once they get
a foothold in any organisation, they will gradually take over
whichever section of the business they are involved with. The
Union does not intend to let that happen in Midland
International.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it does
seem to the Court that there was insufficient consultation with
the staff concerned before the Company decided to use outside
hauliers to augment its transport arrangements. However, having
heard the Company's reasons for adopting this course of action the
Court recommends that the Union accepts the implementation of the
contracted arrangements for a period of six months on the
understanding that the operation will be reviewed thereafter in
the light of the experience of both workers and management.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
19th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.