Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95695 Case Number: LCR15156 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TANKFREIGHT (IRELAND) LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Discharge rate.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is not
satisfied that the Union's claim can be sustained.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
Company's proposals for revised rates (as set out in the Union
document) and the opportunity to earn an additional £300 per annum
as outlined by the Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95695 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR15156
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TANKFREIGHT (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Discharge rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in the transportation, by road
tankers, of bulk products such as milk, edible oils,
petroleum products, LPG and chemicals.
2. In 1994 the Company secured a contract with Texaco for
the delivery of its fuel oil products. Prior to signing
the contract the Company reached agreement with its
drivers in relation to the rates of pay for fuel oil
deliveries. The payment system for drivers is based on
an agreed discharge rate. The Union is seeking an
increase in the rate for the 2.5 inch hose.
3. The Company rejects the Union's claim and states that it
cannot go back and re-negotiate the price it charges to
Texaco and, therefore, cannot negotiate an increase in
the rate of pay to drivers.
4. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 5th December, 1995 but no
agreement was possible. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 7th December, 1995 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 23rd April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union agreed major concessions to enable the Company
secure the Texaco contract.
2. The workers also agreed to forego an increase (2nd Phase)
under the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work (PCW).
3. The concessions have resulted in a major financial loss
for the workers.
4. The members have monitored the 1994 agreement on
discharge times allocated for the 2.5 inch hose and found
them insufficient.
5. The Company gave an undertaking that if there was a
problem with the 2.5 inch discharge time that they would
change it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operate in a very competitive market. It
must keep is costs down to a minimum to survive.
2. The Company has a policy of paying for work done and not
time.
3. The Company provides the following benefits for its
employees; (1) sick payments scheme, (2) pension scheme,
(3) a rebate of VHI costs, (4) meal allowance to drivers
whether they work or are on stand-by. It also provides 5
weeks paid leave. Some of our competitors do not have
these costs.
4. The Company put forward a proposal to resolve the dispute
which would enable the employees to earn an additional
£300 per annum, but it was rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is not
satisfied that the Union's claim can be sustained.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
Company's proposals for revised rates (as set out in the Union
document) and the opportunity to earn an additional £300 per annum
as outlined by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th April, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. ____________
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation Should be addressed to
Mr Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.