Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92605 Case Number: LCR13835 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings by drivers.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made it would seem to the
Court that the drivers concerned in the claim chose to seek a
permanent guarantee of no loss of earnings as opposed to the
limited compensation and potential loss involved in the generally
accepted terms. In these circumstances therefore the case for
excluding certain elements of income which would be payable over
and above the "frozen element" is not sustainable. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92605 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13835
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings by
drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. A major review of the operations of the Company began in
October, 1989. To date, agreements have been reached with the
workfoce on issues of work practices and productivity (details
supplied). In addition the following improvements in
conditions were implemented for the general workforce:
(a) Service pay
(b) Average pay for holidays
(c) An improvement in pension benefits
(d) An #800 net productivity payment (lead in payment).
2. There were particular difficulties for the drivers in
accepting the terms of a new agreement. Under the system for
calculating incentive payments, the drivers could receive the
pay equivalent of 81.50 hours for 45 hours work. This was a
major cost problem for the Company and they sought to address
it by establishing new standards.
3. The new standards were established during 1990. The
application of the new standards would have led to a
significant loss of earnings for the drivers. The Company
proposed that this would be dealt with as per the agreement
where loss of earnings would be protected for 1.50 years.
4. It was agreed by the parties that the van drivers were a
"special case". This was accepted by the general workforce by
secret ballot on 19th April, 1991. Negotiations began on a
modified agreement incorporating new rates of pay for one man
crews, hours of work and subsistence levels.
5. As part of the rationalisation process, conciliation
conferences were held by the Labour Relations Commission on
16th March, 3rd April, 15th April and 18th September, 1992.
Agreement was reached on rates of pay, overtime, a bonus
system, subsistence and one man crews. It was also agreed
that the difference between past earnings (taking a previous
12 months as a reference period) and future earnings would be
established for each driver and would be protected for the
future working life of the driver as long as they remained van
drivers. This protection would be in the form of a frozen sum
for each driver.
6. The composition of the frozen element could not be agreed
by the parties. The Company position was that average holiday
pay and service pay should be taken into account when
calculating the difference between past earnings and future
earnings. The Union could not agree that these elements be
included. The dispute was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on 1st October, 1992 and a
Labour Court investigation took place on 22nd October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's position is that it is unreasonable to expect
drivers to accept a loss of pay in circumstances where they
conceded greater productivity. The reduction of the frozen
element on the introduction of average pay for holidays and
service pay deprives the workers of the benefits of the
agreement. The treatment of subsistence as part of earnings
further deprives the workers of the benefit of the negotiated
increase in this area. Subsistence payments are not earnings
and should not be included in the calculation of the frozen
element.
2. The agreement on rationalisation gave the Company greater
productivity. The workers received a lead in payment of #800
and other benefits (details supplied). As parties to the
agreement the drivers should benefit from service pay, average
pay for holidays and subsistence increases. There is a
minimum of 6 and a maximum of 7 drivers involved in the claim.
The drivers have shown their goodwill by operating the one man
crew while negotiations have been ongoing. The claim is not
cost increasing considering the substantial savings the
Company has already made. There will be no repercussive
claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The drivers rejected the general agreement which provided
for protection of loss of earnings for a period of 1 .50 years.
As a special case the Company conceded that past earnings
would be protected on the basis that the one man van would be
introduced. The agreement was significantly modified for
listed drivers. The drivers are now claiming more than the
protection of past earnings by the inclusion of service pay
and average pay for holidays. The issue of subsistence was
not discussed prior to the Labour Court investigation.
2. The drivers are seeking to benefit from 2 separate
agreements. The benefits of service and average pay were
available to the drivers under the terms of the general
agreement. The general agreement however only provided for
earnings losses being protected for 1.50 years. The modified
agreement protects the drivers earnings for their working
lives. Any further concessions could not be justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made it would seem to the
Court that the drivers concerned in the claim chose to seek a
permanent guarantee of no loss of earnings as opposed to the
limited compensation and potential loss involved in the generally
accepted terms. In these circumstances therefore the case for
excluding certain elements of income which would be payable over
and above the "frozen element" is not sustainable. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
6th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.