Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90140 Case Number: LCR12899 Section / Act: S67 Parties: J. A. WOOD LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the recording of site arrival and departure times on delivery dockets by drivers located at the Company's Tralee and Killarney depots.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
considers that issues having application across the board in the
Company should be the subject of discussions at the Group
Negotiating Committee. Procedures to enable this to be done
should be formalised by the parties.
Insofar as the specific issue before it is concerned the Court
does not consider the filling in of the docket is an unreasonable
request by the Company, and accordingly the Court recommends the
dockets be completed as required by the Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90140 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12899
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: J. A. WOOD LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the recording of site arrival and departure
times on delivery dockets by drivers located at the Company's
Tralee and Killarney depots.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the sale and delivery of ready-mix
concrete which is a perishable product and deteriorates if not
used promptly. For some time the Company has had problems with
delays in delivering ready-mix concrete mainly caused by customers
who have not made the necessary preparations for the receipt of
ready-mix concrete on site. These delays can cause the concrete
to deteriorate, upsets the delivery schedules, and costs the
Company money due to the wasted time of the driver and truck. In
order to eliminate or at least reduce unnecessary delays on site
the Company started to charge customers for these delays. All
ready-mix deliveries involve the truck driver in presenting the
customer with two dockets, one of which the customer keeps, and
the other docket is signed by the customer and returned to the
truck driver. The Company introduced a new procedure (initially
in the Cork depot) whereby the truck driver writes on the delivery
docket the time of arrival and departure from the site. The
customer signs the delivery docket and thus acknowledges that a
delay, if any, did occur. The Company gradually introduced the
new procedure into its other ready-mix depots. However when it
sought to introduce the new procedure at the Tralee and Killarney
depots the Union refused to co-operate without some form of
compensation. This was rejected by the Company. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred on 5th
February, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 16th February, 1990 at which
no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 5th March,
1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took place in
Tralee on 16th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has no objection to negotiating changes in work
procedures. In introducing the new procedure the Company has
ignored the Group Negotiating Committee and has implemented
the new procedure on a piece-meal basis throughout the
ready-mix depots. The Union is not satisfied that the method
of introducing the new procedure is in accordance with good
industrial relations.
2. It can be argued that the Company's new procedures is a
form of productivity and therefore entitles the Union to
negotiate an increase in remuneration. The Union is also
concerned that the information gathered under the new
procedure could be used for more than the reasons stated by
the Company.
3. The Union reserves the right to negotiate changes after
due and adequate consultations have taken place. It is not
acceptable for the Company to introduce the new procedure in
one depot and then, moving very swiftly, use same as a
precedent for other depots. The Company should enter into
meaningful negotiations with the Union on the new procedure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company introduced the new procedure for signing
delivery dockets initially in the Cork depot as the problem of
unnecessary delays on site mainly manifested itself there. It
is a simple procedure of noting the arrival and departure
times and is not in any way troublesome for the drivers
concerned. The Company introduced the new procedures into
seven depots without objections from the drivers or the
Unions. The Company did not seek to introduce the new
procedures by stealth.
2. The new procedure is having the desired effect. Most of
the Company's competitors have introduced the same procedure
and are charging their customers for delays on site. It is
very important for the Company to introduce the new procedure
in the Kerry area where competition is extremely keen and any
extra costs are very harmful to the Company.
3. The new procedure involves minimal change and does not
warrant compensation. There is no question that the delivery
dockets will be used for reasons other than stated by the
Company. Under Section 4 of an employment agreement, between
the Company and the Union, employees responsibilities include
co-operation in productivity and flexibility arrangements
(Subsection(b)) and the carrying out of sensible and
reasonable instructions of Management with the right of appeal
if any instructions are clearly unreasonable (Subsection(e)).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
considers that issues having application across the board in the
Company should be the subject of discussions at the Group
Negotiating Committee. Procedures to enable this to be done
should be formalised by the parties.
Insofar as the specific issue before it is concerned the Court
does not consider the filling in of the docket is an unreasonable
request by the Company, and accordingly the Court recommends the
dockets be completed as required by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
7th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.