Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9626 Case Number: LCR15126 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: D.F.D.S. (Represented by ADAMS CORPORATE SOLICITORS) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Changes in working conditions.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the manner in which the Company addressed the
claims of the employees contributed to unnecessary delay in having
them progressed.
Their approach, the Court considers, was not conducive to the
development and improvement of the industrial relations climate.
The issues in dispute should be resolved as expeditiously as
possible.
To this end, the Court recommends that the parties discuss and
seek to reach agreement on the issues in dispute at a conciliation
conference to be held under the chairmanship of the Labour
Relations Commission, on 10th April, 1996.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree, the Court will
review the situation and issue a definitive Recommendation.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9626 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15126
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
D.F.D.S.
(REPRESENTED BY ADAMS CORPORATE SOLICITORS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Changes in working conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for wage increases, relocation
allowances, overtime payments and changes in working
conditions. On 28th July, 1995 the Union requested a meeting
with Management to discuss the claim. In September, 1995 the
Company took over a smaller company called Blueflite, but
issued redundancy forms (RP1's) to its own staff who were
involved in the claim. The Company refused to attend a
conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission
and the Union served strike notice on the Company, who then
withdrew the redundancy notices.
Numerous letters were exchanged between the parties and
further meetings were held, but agreement could not be
reached. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on
22nd January, 1996 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on
26th March, 1996, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company refuses to acknowledge that the drivers are
underpaid, despite the list of similar companies' pay
rates provided at the Company's request. In November,
1995 the Company withdrew the option of country work
which has resulted in a loss of earnings of £300 per
month per driver.
2. The Company's move from the Docks area to the Robinhood
Industrial Estate has created hardship in terms of extra
expense and time involved in travelling to and from
work. Another company moved recently within the Docks
area and each employee received a relocation payment of
£260.
3. Workers have been requested to work overtime without any
additional payments to their basic salary. Articulated
truck drivers on a 7 day roster do not receive time off
in lieu to compensate for the long hours worked,
particularly when travelling abroad.
4. Due to the Company's delaying tactics and wage
reductions, the claim is now on behalf of only 2
workers, instead of a total of 11 originally. Before
the Company implements any further arbitrary changes,
Management should follow good industrial relations
procedures and consult with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The levels of wages paid are not disproportionate to
those paid in similar companies and are in line with
statutory obligations. The Company operates in a highly
competitive market and wage costs must be controlled to
allow the Company to remain competitive.
2. The Company's move to modern purpose built premises
represents an improvement in the working conditions of
all of its employees. New canteen, locker-room
facilities, etc., have been completed to the highest
standards.
3. No members of the Union concerned have been required to
work overtime for some months and will not be requested
to do so in the foreseeable future. Articulated truck
drivers are no longer employed directly by the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the manner in which the Company addressed the
claims of the employees contributed to unnecessary delay in having
them progressed.
Their approach, the Court considers, was not conducive to the
development and improvement of the industrial relations climate.
The issues in dispute should be resolved as expeditiously as
possible.
To this end, the Court recommends that the parties discuss and
seek to reach agreement on the issues in dispute at a conciliation
conference to be held under the chairmanship of the Labour
Relations Commission, on 10th April, 1996.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree, the Court will
review the situation and issue a definitive Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st April, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.