Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95701 Case Number: LCR15111 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: READYMIX PLC (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING & MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION |
Security of employment in transport activities.
Recommendation:
The Court noted the Company commitment that owner-driver
agreements continue to be on a voluntary basis and no pressure
will be put on individuals to take up this scheme.
Where there is a direct effect on other employees as a result of a
change to owner-driver status, this should be the subject of
discussions between the Company and the particular Union involved.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95701 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15111
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
READYMIX PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING & MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Security of employment in transport activities.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The readymix PLC group of companies is involved in the
manufacture of concrete, road materials and related
production for the Irish market. The group has a number
of companies nationwide.
In early 1995, discussions took place between the
parties at which the Unions expressed their concern
regarding the Company's intentions in relation to its
transport activities.
The Unions claim that there is a policy to replace the
transport fleet with owner-drivers and that pressure has
been applied to encourage drivers to take up this
option.
The Unions are seeking a commitment by Management to
consultation, with a view to agreement, on the
implementation of change.
The Company's position is that change is an on-going
feature of the business and that the practice of using
owner-drivers is well established in the industry and
that change is provided for in the Company/Union
agreement.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference took place on
20th November, 1995 but agreement could not be reached
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13th
December, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 21st February, 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions originally sought a commitment to maintaining
a ratio between Company trucks/hired trucks on a
location by location basis. This would ensure stability
and security of employment and is fully in accordance
with the Company/Union agreement which provides for
Management to utilise plant-hire while maintaining
secure employment.
2. The Unions put forward the proposal - consultation, with
a view to agreement, on the implementation of change, as
a compromise, in view of management's resistance to the
more tangible ratio framework.
3. The Company's policy of replacing company drivers with
owner-drivers has implications for manning levels and
negative implications for the remaining direct
employees.
4. The Unions are seeking a commitment from the Company in
relation to the security of employment of the workers
concerned. There is a clear policy by management to
replace the transport fleet with owner-drivers and
workers who have been encouraged to take up this option
feel threatened by the Company's actions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company is involved in the concrete products
business rather than the transport business. This has
been stated to the unions for many years. This is
evidenced by the fact that the first owner-driver
started in 1969. The use of an "owner-driver" policy is
therefore recognised as accepted practice within the
company and within the industry as a whole.
2. The company fears being precluded from utilising the
Company/Union agreement if the union is successful in
undermining what is already clearly outlined in the
present agreement. In this regard the agreement which
dates back to 1982 makes specific reference to the use
of owner-drivers and hired hauliers. It states:
"Traditional practices in the industry are
recognised. In particular the use of owner drivers
and hired hauliers is recognised as accepted
practice in certain areas."
To interfere with this would undermine that agreement,
an agreement which has served both parties well.
3. The company is faced with huge competition from local
producers who do not have to carry the same overheads as
Readymix. Faced with such competition the company will
never agree to retain loss making transport activities
as this would only serve to decrease security of
employment.
4. The company has consistently stated that it is not "in
the transport business." This fact was enshrined in the
Company/Union agreement and accepted by the Unions. The
Company reiterates that as a matter of strategic company
policy, it is not in the transport business. The
Company will not and cannot, for commercial reasons,
agree to a ratio as requested by the Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court noted the Company commitment that owner-driver
agreements continue to be on a voluntary basis and no pressure
will be put on individuals to take up this scheme.
Where there is a direct effect on other employees as a result of a
change to owner-driver status, this should be the subject of
discussions between the Company and the particular Union involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan , Court Secretary.