Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95657 Case Number: LCR15079 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHIRES IRELAND LIMITED (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Transport re-organisation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute.
(a) Application of C.P.I. to expenses:- The Court does not
find in favour of the Union's claim and recommends that
revision of expenses be negotiated as in the past.
(b) Payment of meal allowance for City Runs to the named
drivers:- It was not clear to the Court that this issue
was specifically addressed during negotiations. This
view is endorsed by the fact that the allowance
continued to be paid for a considerable time subsequent
to July 1994 and was then arbitrarily stopped. In the
circumstances the Court recommends that the payment
continue. It is open to the parties to negotiate the
cessation at any time in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95657 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15079
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHIRES IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Transport re-organisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1994 the Company approached the Union with proposals
for changes in transport arrangements within the Company.
Competitive pressures necessitated the changes. The
Company issued a document to the Union which outlined the
Company's proposal for a future transportation system.
Aspects of the Company's proposal were not acceptable to
the Union. The dispute involved 2 employees who are
drivers with the Company.
2. Several meetings took place at local level to try and
resolve the dispute. However, agreement was not possible
and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on the 7th July, 1994.
3. The Industrial Relations Officer issued proposals in
July, 1994 to resolve the dispute. The 2 drivers
concerned were present at the conciliation conference.
Both sides agreed to recommend the proposals for
acceptance.
4. The Union subsequently rejected part of the proposals and
sought to negotiate further at another conciliation
conference. This conference was adjourned to enable the
IRO to write to the parties outlining the position at
that time.
5. A further conciliation conference was held on 2nd
November, 1995. The Union outlined the elements of the
1994 proposal which it could not accept:-
(a) the timing of early morning starts - these
should be confined to between 6.00 a.m. and
6.30 a.m.;
(b) the expense allowances be subject to review as
per the food element of the Consumer Price
Index (C.P.I.),
(c) that the 2 drivers be allowed to retain their
allowances on city work;
(d) where country runs are completed in a day that
recognition be given that there could be
exceptional circumstances which would cause the
trip to be extended.
6. The Company was prepared to look again at all the issues,
except the link to the C.P.I. in relation to expense
allowances. The Union wanted concession on all the
points raised.
7. Following this conference it was agreed to refer the
following two issues to the Court:-
1. The linking of the allowances to the CPI.
2. The withdrawal of the city meal allowance by
the Company to two named drivers
8. As no agreement was possible it was agreed by both sides
to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 14th November, 1995 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 25th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The subsistence allowance has not been reviewed by the
Company for ten years.
2. The subsistence allowance should be linked to the C.P.I.
3. The Company has withdrawn the city meal allowance from
the 2 workers concerned without any consultation with the
Union.
4. The two drivers concerned were in receipt of the meal
allowance for over fifteen years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's transportation system is a major cost
factor. There is pressure from the U.K. parent-company
to reduce costs.
2. The Union's claim is a cost increasing claim and is
contrary to the terms of the P.C.W.
3. Allowances within the Company were never linked to the
Consumer Price Index.
4. The Union should adhere to the agreement concluded at
conciliation in July, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute.
(a) Application of C.P.I. to expenses:- The Court does not
find in favour of the Union's claim and recommends that
revision of expenses be negotiated as in the past.
(b) Payment of meal allowance for City Runs to the named
drivers:- It was not clear to the Court that this issue
was specifically addressed during negotiations. This
view is endorsed by the fact that the allowance
continued to be paid for a considerable time subsequent
to July 1994 and was then arbitrarily stopped. In the
circumstances the Court recommends that the payment
continue. It is open to the parties to negotiate the
cessation at any time in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
14th February, 1996 --------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.