FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEGRAL BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Loss of subsidised petrol facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation on behalf of 15 craft workers, who purchased petrol at cost price from the Company's storage facility since 1972. Due to irreparable damage to the pump in August, 1990, and to new planning and fire regulations, the Company did not replace the facility.
Negotiations at local level failed to resolve the dispute, which was referred to the Labour Relations Commission for a conciliation conference on 8th March, 1995. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd May, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1972 cost price petrol has been an integral part of the workers' terms and conditions of employment. The Company recognises this, as an offer was made during negotiations to either buy-out the entitlement or to convert cars to LPG. Both offers were, however, rejected by the workers.
2. Since 1990 the workers concerned have suffered a loss of approximately £2.00 per week. As the Company rejected the Union's proposal to issue vouchers to be used at a local petrol station, the workers should be paid a weekly allowance to compensate them for their loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Cost price petrol did not form part of the entitlements or conditions of employment of any staff members. It was an ad hoc arrangement, at no cost to the Company, which was withdrawn during various petrol shortages in the 1960s and 1970s.
2. The introduction of new planning and fire safety regulations was outside of the Company's control and all workers, including 35 office staff, have lost the benefit of reduced price petrol. Any concession on the claim would lead to knock-on claims from other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court has concluded that the claim is not well founded and, accordingly, the Court does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
7th June, 1996______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.