Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93143 Case Number: AD9338 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: RYANS ELECTRIC (CONTRACTS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC463/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider as
appropriate the retention of the truck by the claimant at
week-ends. However, because of the length of time that the
claimant had the use of the vehicle at week-ends and the effect of
its withdrawal on him the Company should pay the claimant a sum of
#500 by way of compensation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93143 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: RYANS ELECTRIC (CONTRACTS) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC463/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. In mid-1989, the Company secured a contract for the
installation of public lighting on the Western By-Pass in Dublin.
The worker concerned who was a general operative/driver at the
time was given the use of a pick up truck for supply and
collection of materials. As he lived in the area he was allowed
private use of the truck at week-ends and overnight. In November,
1992, the worker was due to travel to Kilkenny for two days work
on Thursday and Friday. The previous day (Wednesday) he was sent
to Wicklow to deliver material for a contract. He returned at
6.30 p.m. The Company's yard was closed and the worker parked the
truck outside his house. Next day the two other Company trucks
broke down, and the pick-up was required by the Company but was
not available as it was parked at the worker's house. Management
subsequently decided to withdraw the use of the truck for personal
purposes from the worker. The worker disagreed with the Company's
decision and his Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd February, 1993
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the facility of
having the pick-up truck at week days and week-ends should
be restored to the worker effective from the 1st Monday
following receipt of my recommendation".
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 23rd February, 1993 the Company appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 5th May,
1993.
COMPANY'S AGREEMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given use of the truck in 1989 because he
resided near the Western Parkway, where the Company had the
lighting contract. This was mutually convenient as it saved
travelling time to the Company's depot in Fairview. After the
lighting contract was completed the worker was allowed use of
the truck from home as the Company had acquired two similar
vehicles.
2. Following the incident in November 1992 Management
decided that the truck would have to be left at the Company's
premises. The Company did not want a repeat of the incident
because the truck was non-productive for two days and a
four-man crew were idle. There has been a significant
reduction in the Company's contract work and number of workers
in the employment in recent times. There is little prospect
of obtaining future contracts.
3. The Company's insurers have stated that they will not
cover the Company's vehicles which are parked other than on
the Company's premises during week-ends.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The non-availability of the truck may have aggrieved the
Company but this situation was not attributable to the worker
concerned. When the worker returned at 6.30 p.m. the truck
could not be returned to the Company yard as it was closed at
the time. The worker could not leave the truck outside the
closed premises. His only option was to park the truck
outside his home and leave the keys with his wife as he had
done on previous occasions.
2. The withdrawal of the use of the truck from the worker
was a direct result of this incident and it is unfair that
this benefit should be withdrawn. The private use of Company
transport since 1989 was an undoubted benefit to the claimant
and he had a legitimate expectation that this benefit would
continue.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider as
appropriate the retention of the truck by the claimant at
week-ends. However, because of the length of time that the
claimant had the use of the vehicle at week-ends and the effect of
its withdrawal on him the Company should pay the claimant a sum of
#500 by way of compensation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th May, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman