LCR13435

Subject:
Claims concerning: (a) allowance for one person operation (O.P.O.) of vehicles, (b) implementation of a 39 hour week. CLAIM (A) ALLOWANCE FOR O.P.O. OF VEHICLES.

Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submission of the parties, the Court
recommends:

(1) that the Company offer and the workers accept a sum of £5 per
week on basic pay for the operation of O.P.O. vehicles.

(2) that without precedent to possible future alterations in
working hours in this instance the Company offer to increase
the hourly rate be accepted by the workers concerned.

(3) The 39 hour week for general workers be implemented by way of
one hour less on Friday.

Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD91336 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13435

THE LABOUR COURT

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990


PARTIES: ALLEGRO LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)

AND

MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION


SUBJECT:
1. Claims concerning:

(a) allowance for one person operation (O.P.O.) of vehicles,

(b) implementation of a 39 hour week.


CLAIM (A) ALLOWANCE FOR O.P.O. OF VEHICLES.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a major distributor in the grocery trade. In
1988 the Company decided to rationalise its transport operation.
The Company proposals included a change from a two person
operation to one person operation of vehicles (O.P.O.). During
discussions on the rationalisation proposals the Union claimed a
£6 per week allowance for O.P.O. drivers. It also claimed
implementation of the 39 hour week as provided for under the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). No agreement was
reached on the two claims during the discussions. Following a
number of conciliation conferences in late 1990, and the issue of
a Labour Court Recommendation (No. 13139), agreement was reached
on the implementation of O.P.O., in January, 1991. In May, 1991
the Union sought further discussions under the auspices of the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission concerning
the new O.P.O. arrangements. A conciliation conference was held
on 13th May, 1991 at which the Union claimed (A) an allowance of
£10 per week for O.P.O. and (B) implementation of a 39 hour week
for all staff by way of an additional 6½ days annual leave. The
Company rejected the claim for a £10 per week allowance. The
Company's response to the claim in respect of a 39 hour seek is
included in the background note to claim (B). No agreement could
be reached in relation to both claims and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 28th June, 1991 by the Labour Relations
Commission under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd September,
1991 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During discussions, in January, 1991, on the
introduction of O.P.O., management accepted that the Union's
claim for a £6 per week allowance and a claim for double
standards were integral factors in the resolution of the
O.P.O. dispute. The introduction of O.P.O. commenced, on the
understanding that these two issues and other outstanding
matters were resolved to the satisfaction of the Union.
During further discussions the Union dropped the claim for
the double standards and revised its claim for O.P.O. to £10
per week.

2. Since the introduction of O.P.O. drivers have a
considerable additional workload. The Company introduced
longer vehicles which increased load capacity. As all
vehicles are fully loaded there is extra work for the drivers
in loading and unloading. Through the introduction of O.P.O.
the Company has reduced transport costs and increased
carrying capacity. In the circumstances the Union's claim
for a £10 per week allowance for drivers is warranted.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company introduced O.P.O. in order to reduce
transport costs and remain competitive. The Union's claim
completely contradicts this aim and makes the transport
operation uncompetitive.

2. The Union's claim is cost increasing and is precluded
under the terms of the P.N.R. which does not expire in the
Company until 31st March, 1992. The drivers' total
remuneration is in line with the best paid workers in the
transport business and an increase is not justified in the
context of O.P.O..

3. The Company has proposed that the requirement for
drivers to check loads be waived. This change would resolve
the issue of increased work as it would significantly reduce
working time in the transport area (in the order of 1 hour
per day). The arrangement would compensate for any extra
time spent on difficult drops, and for other alterations in
working arrangements resulting from the introduction of
O.P.O.


CLAIM (B) IMPLEMENTATION OF A 39 HOUR WEEK.

BACKGROUND:
5. Pay terms under the P.N.R. were implemented in the Company
from 1st April, 1989 for a three year period. The Company sought
to defer the implementation of a 39 hour week until the end of the
three year period. The Union claimed implementation at the end of
year two (1st April, 1991). Discussions on the 39 hour week
commenced in March, 1991 with the general workers but

no agreement was reached on the date or method of
implementation. The general workers proceeded to implement the 39
hour week from 1st April, 1991 by way of a one hour earlier finish
on Fridays. The Company did not react to this action.
Discussions on a 39 hour week took place separately with the
transport workers. The Company offered the drivers a 2½% increase
in pay in lieu of the one hour reduction in the working week. The
Union rejected the offer and claimed the introduction of the
reduced working week by way of 6½ day annual leave for all staff
i.e. transport and general workers. The parties were unable to
reach agreement on the issue at the conciliation conference on
13th May, 1991.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In the context of the P.N.R. discussions the Union
sought implementation of the 39 hour week with effect from
1st April, 1991. The Company was unwilling to enter into
meaningful discussions on the issue until after that date.
This is unacceptable to the general workers who have taken a
one hour earlier finish on Fridays, since 1st April, 1991
until the issue is resolved.

2. Following discussions on the introduction of a 39 hour
week for transport workers the Union claimed 6½ days extra
annual leave as a means of introducing the 39 hour week for
all staff. Extra leave would be more beneficial to both the
workers and the Company. Because of the nature of the
transport operation the transport workers would get no real
benefit from an earlier finish on Fridays.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. During discussions on the implementation of a 39 hour
week general workers unilaterally proceeded to take one hour
off on Fridays from 1st April, 1991. The Company did not
react to this situation and the one hour reduction on a
Friday is now the established norm for the general workers.
Having unilaterally taken this action it is unacceptable for
the general workers to change their claim to accumulated time
off. The reduction in working time for general operatives is
firmly established and should continue.

2. The most practical way to introduce the 39 hour week in
the transport area is to continue with existing working
arrangements and to pay transport workers an increase of 2½%
on their basic rate.

3. The Framework Agreement on Hours of Work sets out the
criteria for the local negotiation of the 39 hour week.
Clause 4 (1) of the Agreement states that the parties must
have regard for the costs involved and the implications for
competitiveness. From an operational viewpoint an increase
in annual leave would cause major problems in relation to the
provision of sufficient cover to respond to customer demands.


RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submission of the parties, the Court
recommends:

(1) that the Company offer and the workers accept a sum of £5 per
week on basic pay for the operation of O.P.O. vehicles.

(2) that without precedent to possible future alterations in
working hours in this instance the Company offer to increase
the hourly rate be accepted by the workers concerned.

(3) The 39 hour week for general workers be implemented by way of
one hour less on Friday.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Evelyn Owens
____________________
8th October, 1991
A.S. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman