Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94719 Case Number: LCR14703 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD GAIS - and - AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rehearing arising out of LCR14572 which concerned the restoration of interest-free car loans.
Recommendation:
The Court is on record regarding the need to adhere to agreements
and to exhaust all of the agreed industrial relations procedures.
It is the view of the Court that if the parties wish to harmonise
agreements throughout the Company they should achieve this through
the use of the normal industrial relations procedures.
In this specific case the issue should be resolved by the
applications of the old interest loan scheme (maximum #4,000), the
employees being responsible for administering their own benefit in
kind.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94719 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14703
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BORD GAIS
AND
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rehearing arising out of LCR14572 which concerned the
restoration of interest-free car loans.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. An Bord Gais (the Bord) took over the Company (the
Dublin Gas Company) in 1987. The Company became the
Eastern Region of the Bord. Within Dublin Gas a car
loan scheme was operated which included an
"interest-free" loan arrangement.
2. The "interest-free" loan facility of #4,000 operated for
workers of the Company for a long number of years. In
January, 1992, the Bord refused to give an interest-free
car loan to a worker. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission which recommended that the
Company should negotiate change with the Unions. The
Company indicated that the issue would be included in
the then ongoing negotiations on a new comprehensive
agreement.
3. In November, 1992, the Bord wrote to the Unions
informing them that from 1st January, 1993, all workers
(in Dublin Gas) would only be offered interest-bearing
loans. Workers were, however, allowed to apply for
loans under the terms of the existing agreement up to
31st December, 1992.
4. The Unions rejected the new arrangements and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 7th March, 1994. At
conciliation, the Bord proposed to resolve the dispute
under the terms of Clause 4, page 53 of the
Comprehensive Work Agreement:
"Compensation will be paid for losses due to
reduced earnings arising from loss of shift roster
or stand-by as follows:-
5 times the agreed weekly loss multiplied by each
year the rate has been held, to a maximum of 5
years."
5. The Company's proposal was rejected by the Union and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation LCR14572 which
recommended as follows was issued on 13th October,
1994.
"Given that this Company provides an essential
service and taking account of the Code of Practice
on Disputes Procedures, it is imperative that
parties within the industry adhere to agreements
and exhaust all the industrial relations procedures
to resolve disputes.
In this case, the Court finds that the Company is
in breach of its agreed work agreement. The Court
recommends therefore, that the Company and the
Unions further discuss the introduction of the
scheme to harmonise the arrangements to apply in
the Company, these negotiations to be completed in
a period of four weeks from the date of issue of
this Recommendation.
Failing agreement the Court will review the outcome
of discussions and will issue a definitive
Recommendation."
6. On 7th December, 1994, the Union (AGEMOU) wrote to the
Court seeking a rehearing under the terms of LCR14572.
The Company accepted this position by letter of 14th
December, 1994. The Court investigated the dispute on
10th February, 1995.
7. The Company's original offer to the Unions amounted to
#94 and was in line with the 'buyout' clause of the
Comprehensive Work Agreement. In the course of direct
negotiations this offer was increased to #262 and
finally to #350. These offers were rejected by the
Unions.
8. At the Labour Court investigation, the Bord introduced
the following 2 options for consideration by the Unions:
"1. To take the #350 and move onto the new more
beneficial and tax efficient interest bearing car
loan scheme with the enhanced loan amount of up to
#7,000 or option 2
2. Revert or remain on the old interest free car loan
scheme with its a maximum loan amount of #4,000.
The employee to be responsible for administering
their own benefit in kind."
Option 2 was a concession of the Unions position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is on record regarding the need to adhere to agreements
and to exhaust all of the agreed industrial relations procedures.
It is the view of the Court that if the parties wish to harmonise
agreements throughout the Company they should achieve this through
the use of the normal industrial relations procedures.
In this specific case the issue should be resolved by the
applications of the old interest loan scheme (maximum #4,000), the
employees being responsible for administering their own benefit in
kind.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th March, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.