Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9280 Case Number: LCR13596 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HOYER IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the re-organisation of work and the redundancy of one driver.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions finds that the Company
should recognise the Union on behalf of it's members and should
immediately discuss such issues as either party may wish to
raise.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9280 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13596
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: HOYER IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the re-organisation of work
and the redundancy of one driver.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1989, the Company signed a contract with Ormonde Brick
to transport compressed gas at its Castlecomer plant. The
client company uses gas 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. It was
estimated that 6 tanker loads would be required per day. As
there is no on-site storage facility a tanker is required at the
site at all times. A two shift, seven day system with three
drivers was set up and three drivers were recruited and trained
for the operation. Since the commencement of the contract it
has become obvious that the client was not meeting its own
expectations. The average number of tanker loads per day was
less than 50% of the number on which the operation was based.
The client, as a result, requested the Company to review its
operation in view of the gas consumption. A new schedule based
on a single 12 hour shift operation, 7 days a week was agreed
with the client. This resulted in a reduction in drivers from 3
to 2. The drivers were informed of the re-organisation on 18th
November, 1991. The driver to be made redundant, who was
technically the last employed, was so informed in writing on 9th
December, 1991. The re-organisation also involved a new wage
rate which was lower than the original rate. The Union sought a
meeting with the Company to discuss the matter, however, the
Company declined and instead met with the workers locally. No
agreement was reached and on 27th January, 1992, the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Company implemented the single shift operation
on 16th January, 1992. Prior to the Court's investigation of
the matter on 19th February, 1992, the Union agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the workers were originally employed they were
told that the Company had a 5-year contract with the
client. On that basis they entered into financial
commitments to purchase cars, etc..
2. The Union requests the Company to meet with it and
discuss the reasons for the proposed changes and to explore
ways by which the problem could be resolved. The Union
believes that there are ways in which the problem can be
resolved without re-organising the rosters to the
disadvantage of one of the drivers. The Company's refusal
to meet the Union is denying the workers their right to
representation. The Company's decision to effect a
dismissal without exploring all options is unacceptable.
3. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the
Company meets the Union to discuss the problem and should
there be no agreement between the parties that the services
of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court be
available to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must respond to the client's requirements.
In this situation the client requested the Company to
adjust is schedule to reflect the gas usage which was over
50% less than projected levels.
2. The Company could have refused to change its operation
and risk losing the contract, as has happened in the past.
The Company chose to revise its operation. This had a
number of consequences, including the redundancy of one
driver, a revised roster, removal of anti-social working,
reduced working week, an increased hourly rate (increased
from £4.97 to £5.07), increased subsistence rate (from £11
to £12) and a reduction in gross pay.
3. Although the worker made redundant was not entitled to
any statutory redundancy payment the Company offered him a
goodwill payment of £500. This offer was rejected. The
Company regrets this but feels that the driver has no
further claim and that the Company's relationship with him
has ceased.
4. There has been extensive consultation with the drivers
concerned in an effort to resolve the situation. Every
effort has been made to meet the drivers' aspirations.
The Company's decision in this matter is final.
Nothing must endanger the contract with the client. The
Company cannot offer any more than it already has as this
could result in the loss of the contract and potentially
damage future relationships.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions finds that the Company
should recognise the Union on behalf of it's members and should
immediately discuss such issues as either party may wish to
raise.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
11th March, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.