Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92580 Case Number: LCR13802 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TNT EXPRESS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 warehouse workers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings and for operating revised shift arrangements.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, taking account of the net potential losses of those
workers involved recommends that the Company adjust its offer to
increase the basic rate by #650 p.a. and that the total offer so
adjusted should be accepted in full settlement of the claim in
respect of the changes in shift and work practices required by the
Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92580 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13802
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 19990
PARTIES: TNT EXPRESS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 warehouse workers for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings and for operating
revised shift arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the express freight delivery
service and operates worldwide. Its Irish operation is based at
Coolock Industrial Estate, Dublin and employs approximately 130
people.
3. The Company (worldwide) has incurred losses over the past
number of years and has undergone considerable rationalisation
involving the selling of half its business. In May, 1992 the
Company acquired Federal Express and the take-over initiated
considerable temporary overtime. The workers' overtime earnings
increased from an average of #69 per person per week to #106 per
person per week.
4. In July, 1992 the Company proposed a revised shift arrangement
and recruited 3 part-time workers to work mainly at weekends. The
revised shift arrangements would considerably reduce the overtime
working requirement. The revised shifts consisted of 3 shifts of
three staff, each working eight hour shifts. The Union rejected
the proposals mainly on the grounds that there was insufficient
manning on the revised shifts. The parties met at local level on
25th August, 1992 and the Company put forward the following offer.
(a) #500 increase on basic salary per employee.
(b) Overtime for two employees: midnight Saturdays to 4 a.m.
Sunday morning at double time.
(c) Overtime for two employees: Saturdays 8.00 a.m. to 4
p.m. - first four hours at time and a half, second four
hours at double time.
(d) All other hours as per original proposal.
The Union rejected the offer and lodged the following claim.
(a) Increase of #1,000 on basic salary.
(b) A lump sum payment of #1,000 for loss of overtime
earnings.
(c) Increase in manning from two to three men for the weekend
overtime working.
The Company rejected the claim. The Union served strike notice
and later deferred it when the Company agreed to maintain the old
arrangements while the matter was processed through procedures.
The Union's claim for loss of overtime earnings does not include
the extra overtime generated by the Federal Express business.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 18th September, 1992. As no
agreement was reached, the Commission, with the consent of the
parties referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 22nd
September, 1992 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 30th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company proposals will result in a reduction in the
regular overtime available. This does not include overtime
worked as cover for holidays etc., or the increased working
necessitated by the Federal Express business.
2. The Company's revised manning levels are inadequate.
3. The proposals regarding day shifts will leave two hours a
day Tuesday to Friday where no warehouseman will be on duty.
While this is a reasonably quiet period the Union does not
accept that there will be no work available.
4. The proposed changes in respect of Sunday night working
eliminates the possibility of normal social arrangements for
the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In view of its present circumstances the Company considers
its offers to be fair and reasonable.
2. Other workers requested the recruitment of extra staff as
they objected to the amount of overtime worked. The Company
increased its workforce by 38.
3. Concession of the Union's claim would have repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, taking account of the net potential losses of those
workers involved recommends that the Company adjust its offer to
increase the basic rate by #650 p.a. and that the total offer so
adjusted should be accepted in full settlement of the claim in
respect of the changes in shift and work practices required by the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
21st October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.