FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALLAHER (DUBLIN) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Contracting out of transport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is the market-leader in Ireland in the tobacco industry and manufactures and distributes the brands Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut, employing a workforce of 250, of whom 12 are involved in this dispute.
In Summer, 1997, the Company proposed to contract out its van deliveries in the Dublin City area (deliveries in the rest of the country have been contracted out for a number of years). The reason given by the Company for the contracting out of the deliveries is the security and safety of its staff, there having been a number of hold-ups of the Company's vans during which staff have been attacked and threatened.
The Union does not accept the Company's proposal and rejects its claim that a majority of delivery staff have asked to be taken off the work. It was the Company's intention to re-deploy the van crews in the warehouse. However, the drivers were not prepared to give up the driving positions which are prime-paying jobs with additional payments such as lunch allowances. During local negotiations, the Company had made a compromise proposal which would have involved retaining two of its vans and contracting out the remainder. This proposal was rejected by the Union and was, subsequently, withdrawn. Following the hi-jack in May, 1997, the Company introduced Satellite Tracking Systems (STS) and has provided security awareness training as an interim arrangement until the dispute is resolved.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 9th of April, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 15th of May, 1998.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Contracting out the Dublin deliveries will guarantee the continuity of the Dublin delivery service which represents 30% of the total business and thereby maintain the commercial viability of the Company. It will contractually guarantee the Company's deliveries with a specialist haulier whose greater resource in vehicles, drivers and security expertise will present the criminals with a greater challenge. Accordingly, this will result in the protection of the health and safety of employees.
2. The Company's position was rejected by the Union although it safeguarded jobs by guaranteeing no enforced redundancies. The Union did however, produce a list of employees who are prepared to continue working on the vans regardless of the risk involved. Although the Company accepts that this commitment was made in good faith, it falls far short of a guarantee that Dublin deliveries will continue regardless of future events. This is a promise that cannot be delivered, therefore, the Company's business continues to be at risk.
3. The Company has been willing to discuss compensation, buy-outs or intermediary solutions but this has been rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union refutes the suggestion that there has been a large-scale exodus of staff from the transport division. Of the original 3 drivers, 2 have retired, one on full service and one on early retirement. Of the 3 helpers 2 moved to vacant driver positions, one remains and the 2 other positions have been filled by temporary workers. Of the relief panel, only 2 of the original 6 have requested to leave the panel.
2. Whilst noting the Company's concerns for health and safety, the obligation on employers to provide a safe working environment was never meant to lead to the deletion of jobs. Satellite tracking only came on stream in August 1997. There have been no significant incidents since the STS was fully introduced.
3. There have been several suggestions by management that there are employees who are surplus to requirement on site. It is difficult to see how these employees could be absorbed while retaining the overall headcount at the Dublin plant.
4. A line of progression to a higher grade would be deleted for many industrial operatives, especially relief van drivers/helpers.
5. In 2 other similar companies similar proposals were presented and then withdrawn in the face of resistance. The Union suspects that this Company is acting as a "stalking horse" on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and verbal submissions of the parties.
The Company is concerned at the likelihood of further risk and threats to its drivers, and also any consequent disruption to its deliveries. The Union considers that the steps taken to improve security, especially the satellite tracking system, have effectively removed much of this risk, and wishes to retain drivers' jobs. The nature of some of the robberies described, however, was such that the STS would not be effective in preventing these.
The Court, having considered the points made by both sides, and not being in a position to assess the level of risk involved, recommends as below:-
- The Company's proposal, since withdrawn, to retain the existing crews of two vans, with adjustments to the areas covered, should be implemented for the present. The third van and a proportionate area should be assigned to a specialist carrier.
The ongoing position should be monitored to establish over time if a risk to van crews continues with the new precautions in place, and the situation reviewed on an ongoing basis by both parties.
The Company should take steps to eliminate the perceived increased risk caused by the use of untrained assistants.
The Company and Union should agree compensation for any losses resulting from these recommended changes.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th June, 1998______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.