FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WINCANTON IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Routing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a logistics Company providing contract distribution to client companies across various industries. In Ireland the company holds four main contracts, three of which are in the oil industry. This dispute relates to the Statoil contract, which has 34 drivers, 17 of which are based at Dublin.
The Company commercial contract with its customer Statoil provides for an agreed predetermined number of kilometres per delivery to each Statoil station and other commercial customers. The agreed charging mechanism is based on the number of kilometres run per day and not on moving targets.
In February/March 2002 Statoil refused to pay for any costs other than the actual shortest most direct route to the customer as provided for in the agreement. The Company advised all the drivers that the shortest most direct route would have to be utilised and a dispute arose in relation to the use of the M50 by drivers instead of the Dublin Quays.
Discussions took place locally but no agreement could be reached. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission but no agreement could be reached.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of September, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th November, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Workers have used the M50 motorway since it opened and no objections were raised by management.
2. The use of the M50 helps to eliminate some of the stress and hassle of modern day traffic conditions.
3. The Dangerous Substances Act 1972 states"where it is proposed to consign by road a complete load of a scheduled substance, the consignor or carrier shall, where practicable, select a route which avoids areas of high population directly and areas where contamination by a scheduled substance may affect water supplies".
4. The workers are convinced that they are doing the right thing by fully using the M50 motorway, thereby removing the fleet of large road tankers from the already overburdened city roads and at the same time create an environment for themselves which has a little less hassle and pressure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no legal restriction on drivers using the Quays.
2. The Company are fully compliant with all of the provisions of The International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations (ADR 2001) and argue that having to travel through higher population density areas, particularly at school opening and closing times, to access and return from the M50 presents a far greater risk.
3.The quantifiable cost to the Company of drivers unnecessarily using the M50 is approximately €68,940 per annum.
4. The commercial contract with Statoil is due to expire on January, 31st 2003. Termination notice has already been served on the company and the contract has been put out to tender. The Company will have to enter into the tender process and hope to be successful in winning the contract again. However, this is dependent on the Company being in a position to put in a competitive and realistic bid.
5. The Company reserves the right at all times to manage and direct work in the most efficient manner possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case that has been referred to the Court is a difficult one for the Court to adjudicate on as it is based on the drivers concerns from a health and safety point of view regarding the routes they drive and the Company's concerns regarding the viability of retaining a crucial contract based on these routes. It is the Company's position that there is no health and safety issue and no legal restriction on using the shorter route. However, it points to the extra costs liable to be incurred and the possibility of losing one of its major contracts.
No evidence has been provided regarding the health and safety concerns of the routes proposed. The Court notes that other drivers use the routes sought by the Company. In the absence of definitive reports the Court is not in a position to technically assess the health and safety aspects of the routes and therefore, the Court has no basis to decide in favour of the Union.
In these circumstances, the Court is not in a position to recommend that the drivers select their own routes. In the event of other discussions between the Company and the drivers, the issue of which route to take should be clearly defined.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.