FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WINCANTON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pick-up of loads from Shell Loading Terminal - Claim for third party pick-up allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Topaz Energy operates the Statoil and Shell petrol stations in the State. This case concerns Wincanton fuel tanker drivers working on the Statoil distribution contract for Topaz Energy. The Company's most significant competitor operates the Shell distribution contract for Topaz Energy. Wincanton drivers working on the Statoil distribution contract load in the Statoil terminal while its competitor's drivers working on the Shell distribution contract load in the Shell terminal. Traditionally, if the Statoil terminal runs out of fuel, its drivers can pick up fuel in the other terminal. The distance between the two terminals is c.900 metres. Topaz Energy acquired Statoil, including its terminal, in November 2006, having previously acquired Shell and its terminal in 2005.
Following the common ownership of both terminals since the end of 2006 there has been a marked increase in the frequency of these pick-ups, the Union sought the payment of an allowance of 15 minutes overtime per pick-up. The Company, in rejecting this claim, stated that productivity payments it makes cover these pick-ups. However, when the Union said that its members would cease making these pick-ups from midnight on the 13th December, 2007, the Company agreed to pay the allowance on a without prejudice basis pending the holding of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached at that Conciliation Conference, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th December, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd April, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company decided, without any prior consultation and in breach of existing agreements, that drivers would load in the Shell terminal.
2. These extra pick-ups have resulted in significant savings for the Company.As these pick-ups place extra responsibility, particularly in the area of health and safety, on the drivers, they should be compensated accordingly.
3.The payment of an offsite loading allowance is common in the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim is unwarranted because productivity payments made by the Company cover these pick-ups and is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded under the provisions of 'Towards 2016'.
2. The Company is dictated to by Topaz Energy in terms of where its drivers load from and deliver to.
3.The Company operates in a highly competitive industry with constant downward pressure on costs. While the Company is considered the employer of choice in the industry - the drivers have high wages and low turnover - it has a higher cost base than its competitors. Concession of this claim would place the Company at a further competitive disadvantage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the arguments made by the parties in this case and the provisions of "Towards 2016", the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7 May, 2008.______________________
JMcCabe.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.