Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92630 Case Number: LCR13854 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MUSGRAVE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company increase its offer to #5,500 and that
the Union accept this amount in full settlement of their claim and
agree to co-operate with the proposed changes.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92630 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13854
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MUSGRAVE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates two supermarket franchises, namely
'Centra' and 'Supervalu'. Due to ongoing rationalisation, the
Company is seeking the phased introduction of driver-only
deliveries, which would result in the transfer of three drivers'
helpers from van duties to warehousing duties. In April, 1991 the
Union and the Company agreed in principle to the operation of
one-person delivery vans. While the Company acknowledges that the
drivers' helpers will incur a loss of earnings on transfer to
warehousing duties, it considers that the Union's claim for
compensation of #10,000 for each helper is unreasonable and
excessive. The Company offered the workers compensation of #4,500
each. Agreement on the amount of compensation was not reached, and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Following conciliation conferences in May and August, 1992 the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October,
1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork, on the 3rd
of November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has stated that it would save #60,000 if three
helpers were moved from van duties to warehousing.
2. Two years' loss of expenses alone would amount to #3,400
for each helper.
3. The transfer of the van-helpers from a position with
recognised potential for promotion, warrants considerable
compensation.
4. The workers would prefer if their positions as van-helpers
were not eliminated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is reasonable and fair to refuse the Union's claim for
compensation (1,000x2) for loss of earnings where no loss will
be incurred, as evidenced by Company records of a previous
transfer of a worker from van-helper to warehousing duties.
2. The Union claims #1,700x2 for each worker as compensation
for loss of expenses. Expenses were paid to van-helpers only
as incurred per delivery. Workers who transfer to the
warehouse will receive warehouse bonus payments, overtime and
can avail of a subsidised canteen.
3. The Union claim a payment of #1,000 for each worker for
'flexibility and co-operation'. It must be borne in mind that
the Company is offering the workers full-time employment, and
maintaining the excellent total remuneration package which all
Musgrave employees enjoy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company increase its offer to #5,500 and that
the Union accept this amount in full settlement of their claim and
agree to co-operate with the proposed changes.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
16th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.