FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAWN DAIRIES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Restructuring Of Distribution
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposals on the restructuring of the distribution routes in Limerick City Area. The Company has merged routes in other areas to eliminate duplication and overlaps between brands. The distribution model of putting both brands on a single vehicle has been implemented across southern and western business areas. The restructuring was necessary due to falling sales and would provide a smaller pool of drivers with the ability to earn more. The Union's position is that they have no problem with the economics of the Company's proposals but identified a number of basic protections required to safeguard the position of the drivers given that the possible earnings identified were potential earnings only.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th November, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 19990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Workers concerned have persistently argued that they are not opposed per se to the restructuring. The Workers do not believe the potential earnings identified by the Company will be achieved. The Workers do not believe it would be possible to revert to the previous way of working if a trial of the proposed restructuring proves unsuccessful in terms of earnings. There is no ongoing income protection.
2 The Workers currently work 6 days out of 7. They believe this to be onerous and excessive and wish to work 5 days over 7. They are not seeking to restrict the roster to Monday to Fridays but require 2 consecutive days off within the week.
3 Restructuring started out as a claim for improved pay. If income reduction resulted for any of the Workers from the restructuring then the claim will have created a situation where the Workers would be financially worse off having made a claim for improvements in pay. This would be unacceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Since September 2006, the Company has attempted to deal with the concerns of the Workers in regard to the restructuring. The Company is open to a review within a reasonable timescale which would assess the effectiveness of the new restructured model.
2 The proposed restructured model deals with inefficiency that the Company cannot commercially tolerate. It eliminates overlaps and optimises routes. A more focused role emerges for the Workers with less travelling time.
3 The Company is in the business of adapting to the challenges of the market place. This can only be achieved with the best models of distribution and production
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court that the proposals originally put to the parties by the Labour Relations Commission in August, 2006 should be accepted and implemented in order to allow the Company to feasibly compete in the market place. The only modification which should be made is that the trial period (at paragraph 3 of the IRO's proposals) should be extended to twelve months.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.