Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94493 Case Number: LCR14613 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
The elimination of directly employed drivers at Ballyneety.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's proposal to re-deploy the driver
concerned whilst retaining his current rate on a personal basis is
reasonable in the circumstances outlined and should be accepted.
As accepting re-deployment will mean a considerable drop in
earnings for the claimant the Court further recommends that he be
paid a sum equal to 2.50 times the annual average of overtime
calculated over the last three years up to the date of the hearing
as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94493 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14613
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The elimination of directly employed drivers at Ballyneety.
BACKGROUND:
2. Ballyneety Quarry plant is part of Cement Roadstone Ltd. The
Company state that it has been losing money over the past
number of years. To rectify the problem and to make the
plant viable the Company proposed a number of changes
including a proposal to discontinue the use of six Company
trucks. The Company proposed that the 6 drivers become
drivers/owners through purchasing their trucks and operating
them on a contract basis. Of the 6 drivers, 2 accepted
redundancy and 3 transferred to owner drivers. The remaining
driver wishes to remain as a Company employee. Roadstone are
unable to agree to this request and require the driver to
transfer to some other location. Many of Roadstone
competitors have changed to driver/owner as a result of
competition in the construction industry.
The worker concerned has 31 years service with the Company.
The Union have been informed by the Company that if his truck
breaks down it will not be repaired. This will force the
driver out of a job. The options of re-deployment is not
acceptable as the individual concerned would lose about #100
per week. In addition he would become the most junior dumper
driver and also would become a seasonal rather than a full
time employee with the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 26th May, 1994
and 19th September, 1994 but no progress was made. The issue
was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour
Court on the 25th September, 1994. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 4th November,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is agreeable to a change in status for
employees provided it is on a voluntary basis. It will
not accept any compulsory change which would force long
serving employees out of their jobs.
2. The worker involved in this case has 31 years service as
a driver and does not want to take on the responsibility
of being a driver/owner with the Company.
3. The options of re-deployment is not acceptable as the
driver would lose #100 per week and would also become
the most junior dumper driver on the site. In addition
he would become a seasonal rather than a full time
employee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The plant at Ballyneety Quarry has been losing money
over the past number of years. It is imperative that
the Company reduce its labour costs in order to ensure
the viability of the Ballyneety operation.
2. Other companies in the construction business have
changed to driver/owner status and Roadstone must do
likewise in order to remain competitive. The conditions
of employment at Roadstone are far ahead of many of its
competitors.
3. In addition to the proposal to become a driver/owner,
the Company also offered the driver concerned an
alternative driving position within the present
location. The Company has made every effort to
facilitate the employee concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's proposal to re-deploy the driver
concerned whilst retaining his current rate on a personal basis is
reasonable in the circumstances outlined and should be accepted.
As accepting re-deployment will mean a considerable drop in
earnings for the claimant the Court further recommends that he be
paid a sum equal to 2.50 times the annual average of overtime
calculated over the last three years up to the date of the hearing
as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
L.W./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.