FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : J. W. CARNEGIE & CO. LTD - AND - OLIVER HURLEY (REPRESENTED BY AUTOMOBILE & GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES TRADE GROUP) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of earnings and change in conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed by the Company as an articulated truck driver over a 28 year period. The Company is involved in the sand and gravel business, quarrying a pit in Blessington which supplies washed sand and gravel to the building industry. The Company operates with a fleet of 10 rigid trucks and 6 articulated trucks and also contracts a number of outside hauliers. The worker asked to bring his vehicle home to his residence on finishing his day's work and this request was acceded to. The Company now has a depot near the Naas Road, where Company vehicles are parked overnight on completion of their day's final delivery. On the 15th of August, 2001, the worker was instructed to park his lorry at the depot from that evening on. No negotiations took place locally.
The Union referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner Service but the Company refused to attend the hearing. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 16th of November, 2001, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and the worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has worked for the Company for 28 years with no complaints about his work, but he now feels he is being intimidated and victimised because he is the shop steward.
2. It was a condition of employment that he could take the lorry home.
3. The are a number of articulated lorry drivers in the company who continue to take the trucks home in the evening. The worker is the only one that has been singled out and discriminated against.
4. The worker has rights under custom and practice which he has held for 28 years.
5. The Company claim that their insurance does not cover driving on the road leading to the workers home. The local authority vehicles going to the dump use this road as do other truck drivers, the same tax and insurance conditions must apply to them. Management in the company have instructed fleet truck drivers to use that road on various occasions when there was trouble on the other road.
6. The worker has put a safe parking bay at the side of his house at his own expense and has in the past allowed the company to use it .
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In recent years, insurance costs have increased considerably.
2. The allegation of victimisation is without foundation and absolutely untrue.
3. The Company are precluded,for legal reasons, from continuing the facility which the worker has been granted.
4. The Company is now obliged to obtain insurance through a UK based insurer, on a month to month basic.
5. There are ample facilities for the safe parking of privately owned vehicles at the depot provided.
6. The depot provided is 2.5 miles from the worker's residence and there is no substantial disadvantage to the worker leaving the Company vehicle in the depot.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considers it regrettable that this case came before it without any prior discussions between the parties on the issue involved.
It is the Company's case that they are restricted by their insurers from allowing its trucks to use the road in question. The Union accepts that if the Company are restricted in that regard they cannot be expected to allow the claimant to continue taking the truck home. However, at present, the Union does not accept the veracity of the Company's claim.
The Court recommends that the parties should now have local discussions on the matter in dispute. Specifically, the Company should provide such information as is reasonable to reassure the Union as to the validity of the reasons given for requiring the claimant to park the truck in the designated depot. The parties should then negotiate an appropriate compensation payment for the loss of the facility which the claimant previously enjoyed.
In the event of the parties failing to agree, they should report to the Court in writing and the Court will issue a further recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th February, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.