Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92258 Case Number: AD92178 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Unions against Recommendation C of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 477/91 concerning the manning of limestone trucks on overtime.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no grounds on which it should recommend concession of the
Unions' appeal.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92258 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD17892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Unions against Recommendation C of Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 477/91 concerning the
manning of limestone trucks on overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces sintered magnesia at its production
facility in Drogheda. Limestone is used in the production
process and is transported by truck from a quarry 5 miles away.
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 477/91 concerns
three disputes related to the Company's transport operations.
Dispute C concerns the manning of limestone trucks on overtime.
The Company operates a two shift system for the haulage of
limestone using four trucks per shift. Nine drivers are
involved as there are four drivers per shift plus a named relief
driver. The Union claims that when the rostered driver and the
relief driver are absent, the remaining drivers should continue
to man the trucks on overtime. The Company claims that overtime
working is at the discretion of management. The disputes were
investigated by a Rights Commissioner on 27th January, 1992 and
he issued his recommendation on 12th March, 1992.
Recommendation C is as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts that the Company can
decide whether the trucks are manned on overtime during the
normal working week."
On 22nd April, 1992 the Unions appealed against Recommendation C
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal in Drogheda on 23rd June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has been custom and practice that if a rostered
driver and the relief driver are absent on the limestone
trucks, the other drivers provide cover on overtime. The
Company has introduced a system which changes cover from
automatic to the discretion of the Company. This has
resulted in a loss of earnings for the drivers of
approximately #50 per week each.
2. Clause 13 of the 1970 General Working Agreement refers
to shift work and states that "shiftworkers on two or three
shifts shall continue working until relieved". This was
always the case when relief drivers were not available on
limestone trucks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 13 of the 1970 agreement states as follows:-
" Shiftworkers on two or three shifts shall continue
working until relieved. Should any emergency arise,
shiftworkers will also continue working but an
individual can be excused where justified for personal
reasons."
This Clause was written into the Agreement specifically to
cover employees working positions in the general process
where major plant running was involved in the factory. It
did not cover drivers on road trucks where there was no
ongoing requirements to keep the trucks on the road.
2. When a driver fails to turn in it is at the Company's
discretion as to whether this truck is required to be
manned on overtime or left idle. The Company requests the
Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in
relation to dispute C.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no grounds on which it should recommend concession of the
Unions' appeal.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
2nd July, 1992 ____________________________________
A.S./M.H. Deputy Chairman