FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GUINNESS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Work practices and Plan 2000.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute in relation to the delivery of the Company's new Cold Flow Guinness. To meet customer demand for a cooler Guinness the Company has test marketed "Cold Flow". This has met with a positive response and the Company now proposes to distribute the new product on a wider basis.
The Company argues that the only difference for delivery purposes is that the keg containing Cold Flow has a different colour tag to the kegs of ordinary Guinness. The Company is seeking that its drivers deliver both kegs in the one load. It claims that the changes sought are provided for in the Plan 2000 Agreement which was implemented in September, 1995. The Union reject management's claim.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 9th April, 1997. As Agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th April, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the Company's claim that its proposal is provided for in Plan 2000. Plan 2000 provided for a considerable reduction in jobs, increased productivity and enhanced benefits for those workers retaining jobs. During the negotiations management tabled and subsequently withdrew a proposal on co-operation with mixed loads.
2. The Union is concerned that management will use Plan 2000 as a means for dealing with all its future developments.
3. There are practical difficulties associated with mixed deliveries and management's proposal would substantially increase the drivers work load. The proposal involves significant change and in the circumstances the Union is seeking that management negotiate and agree all aspects of the change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Plan 2000 Agreement was a major departure from traditional re-organisation plans and involved concessions from the Company in return for a significant mind shift on the part of employees. It is the Company's view that the distribution employees have got a good deal and that the job has become easier with the elimination of the delivery of gas cylinders.
2. The Plan 2000 Agreement contains a commitment by the drivers to co-operate with changing customer demands.
3. Delivery crews have regularly delivered more than one type of keg. The Company's proposal does not require the drivers to do anything that they haven't done in the past and is reasonable in terms of protecting its market share and its expectation under Plan 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that there were specific arrangements discussed in Plan 2000 should the event arise for the requirement to transport "mixed loads".
The Court finds that the requirement here does not fall into the definition of "mixed loads" as discussed under the Plan.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the change here required was comprehended under the provisions of Plan 2000.
The Court recommends that the work as proposed by the Company should be carried out. The operation should be monitored and any problems arising should be addressed.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd May, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.