FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Redeployment of drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council wishes to redeploy drivers to other duties during the winter months because it maintains there is insufficient work for them during those months. The Council claims that there is enough work for 5 drivers during the slack period and wants to re-deploy the remaining 13 to road work i.e. cleaning water courses, patching repairs, salting, gritting, erecting signs etc. The Union, while willing to consider the voluntary concept, rejects the proposal for compulsory redeployment. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 14th May, and 17th September, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 8th October, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Portlaoise on the 27th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not accept the extent of the Council's requirement for redeployment. There should be maximum use of the Council's plant and drivers together with a corresponding reduction in the hiring in of contractors. There is no reason why the Council should pay for hired in plant while its own equipment lies idle. Work should be more efficiently scheduled, chips stock piled using all the trucks, redeploy temporary drivers to their own areas etc.
2. The workers concerned have given loyal and committed service to the Council. They strongly object to compulsory re-deployment and downgrading. There have been significant reductions in staff levels over the years including a reduction in driver numbers from 30 to 18.
3. A large sum of money is available to the Council to cover the costs of repair to county roads, arising from the building of the Portlaoise By Pass. This would provide considerable employment for drivers in the coming months.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For the 1995 and 1996 winter season some 410 working days were spent by drivers in the yard at a significant cost to the Council. This situation is unsustainable.
2. In other employments lay-offs would have occurred. The Council, however, has maintained full employment and continued regular overtime.
3. The Council proposals provide for redeployment to alternative work at no loss of basic pay. The criteria used for redeployment are sensitive to the need to locate drivers near home and respects their seniority.
4. It is not possible to accommodate voluntary redeployment. This would, in effect, give drivers a veto.
5. The Council cannot agree to the Union's suggestion on plant hire. Contractors are unwilling to allow plant be hired without their own drivers. The Council will only hire private plant where insufficient council plant is available.
6. Previously in a similar situation where Kilkenny County Council wished to redeploy drivers at the general operative rate the Court recommended in favour of the Council (LCR 11951). In this case Laois County Council has not sought to reduce drivers' pay and has adopted a very reasonable position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that the parties are already into the period around which this argument centres.
While the Court believes it is unreasonable for individuals to expect to be paid when not fully occupied, it is also conscious that the drivers believe that meaningful work can be found for all the drivers.
However, given the time scale involved, the Court recommends that for the current period of slackness the following interim arrangements should operate.
(1) The County Council to retain 9 drivers within the current arrangement.
(2) The balance of the drivers to be redeployed.
(3) All drivers to retain all allowances they enjoy currently
(4) Discussions to take place early in 1997 to deal with any implications arising from the full implementation of the Council's proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th December, 1996______________________
T'O.D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.