Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92427 Case Number: LCR13860 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ASTON COLOUR PRESS LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Continuation of Company transport service.
Recommendation:
1992
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92427 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13860
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ASTON COLOUR PRESS LIMITED
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Continuation of Company transport service.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1991, the Company relocated its business from Aston
Place, Dublin 2 to the Bluebell Industrial Estate, Naas Road,
Dublin 12. Agreement was reached between the parties on a
relocating/disturbance package. As part of this agreement the
Company agreed to provide a bus for a period of not less than 1
year to transport the workers concerned to and from the city
centre and to meet with the Unions at the end of the eleventh
month to review the situation. When the review took place the
Unions sought the continuation of the bus service. The Unions
claim that it is not possible for the workers to get to Bluebell,
in time to start work without having the bus service provided by
the Company. The Company rejected the claim. The matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on 23rd June, 1992, and as no agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
23rd July, 1992. The Court hearing took place on 19th October,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has an obligation to staff who were employed
in Aston Place. It is not acceptable that twelve months after
the transfer the Company propose to discontinue the bus
service. Many companies for similar reasons, provide
transport to and from the work-place.
2. If the Company discontinue the bus service it will be
impossible for the workers concerned to comply with their
conditions of employment.
3. The move to Bluebell involves all the workers in
additional travelling time. This they have accepted but for
the workers who would have to depend on public transport, it
would be impossible to get to work on time. They would also
have difficulty travelling home after work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. To secure the employment of the workers concerned the
Company had no option but to move to Bluebell. It was in
danger of losing the business of its clients unless it
attained the quality mark and ISO certification (printing
industry standard). The Company could never hope to attain
these standards at its premises in Aston Place.
2. The workers clearly understood that the provision of
transport was never intended to be an ongoing feature of their
employment.
3. The Company agreed to provide transport for a period of
twelve months. It did so, clearly stating that the provision
of the transport was against its wishes and that it did not
intend that it would continue in the future.
4. The Company is losing money because of the state of its
business. The cost of supplying transport is #7,500 per
annum. It is not realistic for the workers to expect the
Company to continue supplying transport in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having examined the issues raised by the parties, the Court is
of the view that the arrangement in respect of the provision of
transport should be discontinued with effect from 1st December,
1992.
The workers who on a regular basis make use of the service should
each receive a lump sum payment of #100 in full and final
settlement of the issue.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
26th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.