Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94485 Case Number: LCR14607 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: O'KEEFFE TRANSPORT LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Payment System.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the arguments in this case and
recommends that the Company's offer, detailed at the hearing,
should be accepted by the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94485 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14607
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
O'KEEFFE TRANSPORT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY BRIAN FLYNN AND ASSOCIATES)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Payment System.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed by the Company as a tanker driver
delivering oil. The worker's system of pay since 1980 was on
a time basis (in 1990 his basic wage was #120 per 39 hour
week plus #29.00 in expenses). He worked two out of three
Saturdays on an overtime rate of time and a half.
In 1990, the worker sought to increase his earnings and in
1992 the Company changed his system of pay to a piece-rate
system - the more oil the worker delivered the more he
earned. It was agreed that a review would take place if the
worker was worse off as a result of the new system. In 1993,
the worker expressed dissatisfaction with the system and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissioner. A
conciliation conference was held and the following proposal
issued:-
"The worker would continue to be paid on a gallonage system
subject to the following provisions:-
His minimum earnings would by #120 + #29 expenses for a 39
hour week (i.e. he would get gallonage or the minimum
whichever is the higher). For Saturdays overtime gallonage
or time and a half (#4.61 per hour) whichever is the higher
would be paid".
The proposal was initially accepted by both parties. Some
time later the worker expressed dissatisfaction with the
system. He sought a Labour Court hearing but cancelled it
and sought a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The Company
refused to attend and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 on 31st August, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 9th November, 1994, in Clonmel (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's wage in 1990 was considerably below the
norm for a tanker driver. It took the Company two years
to change the worker's pay system. The worker was
unhappy with the new piece-rate system but the Company
refused to change it back to the basic payrate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1993, the worker's earnings were considerably better
than in the previous year under the basic pay rate. The
proposal from the Labour Relations Commission guaranteed
the worker minimum earnings under the piece rate system.
He had the potential to earn more (up to #250 per week).
2. The worker now earns #168.75 per week. He is not
required to work extra time for this wage. He still has
the potential to earn more if he wishes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the arguments in this case and
recommends that the Company's offer, detailed at the hearing,
should be accepted by the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.