Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92460 Case Number: LCR13769 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH IRELAND - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning guaranteed payment of 51 hours per week for drivers.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's position with regard to the
agreement of 1989 is reasonable. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
As the difference of interpretation has arisen as a result of the
movement of 2 people to road transport the Court further
recommends that, whilst upholding the Company's position on the
principle involved, the parties have further discussions with a
view to agreeing special arrangements to these two employees.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92460 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13769
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH IRELAND
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning guaranteed payment of 51 hours per week for
drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Historically certain groups of workers within the
manufacturing and distribution departments have had guaranteed
hours per week as a means of protecting earnings. The drivers
have a guaranteed working week of 51 hours.
3. In June, 1989 one-man operation was introduced following
lengthy negotiations. As a result the Company's complement of
drivers was reduced from 27 to 13 by a voluntary redundancy
package. The remaining drivers retained the 51 hour guaranteed
week.
4. In 1992, due to illness, a driver was re-deployed to another
area of the Company's business and a replacement driver was
appointed in his place. This driver was placed on a 39-hour week
with an option to work overtime as required. (Another driver was
subsequently redeployed under similar circumstances). The Union
claimed that the driver should have a guaranteed working week of
51 hours as the agreement for one-man operation guaranteed a
51-hour working week for 13 drivers. The Company rejected the
claim on the grounds that the guaranteed working week was in
respect of named individuals.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
16th May, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 16th July,
1992. As no agreement was reached, the Commission, with the
consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 26 of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on
15th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union entered into the agreement on one-man operation
on the understanding that agreed manning levels would be
maintained with established pay and conditions.
2. It was never envisaged that over a period of time
conditions in the Transport Department would worsen.
3. The Union has been flexible in its approach to road
transport in that it has allowed the Company to use
contractors and temporary workers during busy periods.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The agreement covering the one-man operation gave a
guarantee of a 51-hour week to 13 named drivers. It was never
intended that this guarantee would continue in perpetuity.
2. In the case of the named drivers (as well as other named
workers in different sections) the guaranteed minimum week was
introduced as a means of protecting earnings. New entrants
into these sections are not entitled to such guarantees and
are employed on a basic 39-hour week contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's position with regard to the
agreement of 1989 is reasonable. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
As the difference of interpretation has arisen as a result of the
movement of 2 people to road transport the Court further
recommends that, whilst upholding the Company's position on the
principle involved, the parties have further discussions with a
view to agreeing special arrangements to these two employees.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
---------------
30th September, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.