FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONOCO PHILLIPS, WHITEGATE REFINERY LIMITED - AND - UNITE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rehearing arising from LCR19185
BACKGROUND:
2. The case, which involves subsidised transport for a number of workers, was before the Court previously and LCR19185 issued in April, 2008. The Company had used CIE buses to transport the workers but changed this to another company - DC - in February/March, 2008. In LCR19185, the Court recommended that the parties should agree a cost-efficient service to those who wished to avail of one and offer the option of a buy-out for the loss of the service to those who had actually used it. Discussions were to take place within four weeks. However, despite a meeting and a large amount of correspondence between the parties agreement could not be reached and the Company referred the case back to the Court in April, 2009. (The Company had threatened to discontinue the service in February, 2009, but, following an approach by the Union, reinstated it and it continues to run to the present). The Company's case is that it is not financially viable to continue with the service because of the small number of workers involved. The Unions claim that it is a condition of employment for the workers that the service is maintained.
The Labour Court re-hearing arising from LCR19185 took place on the 16th July, 2009
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have the right under their terms of conditions to have the service maintained. LCR19185 endorsed this position and to withdraw it would have major implications, both financially and from a work/life balance, on the small number of employees using the service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been totally frustrated by the Unions. Whilst it appeared to have reached agreement with two of them the third Union would not agree to a settlement
2. Although there is only a maximum of 22 workers using the transport service between shift workers and day operatives, it is costing the Company €120,000 per year to maintain it. The Company cannot afford this, particularly in the current economic climate. Since LCR19158 issued, the Company has spent €146,000 on the subsidised service at a time when the issue should have been resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties.
The Court, in the first instance, reiterates and fully endorses its Recommendation No.19185 in all its aspects.
The Court notes with some disappointment the fact that, in their subsequent local discussions, all of the various parties deviated to some extent from the basic principles of that Recommendation.
To reiterate, the Court said that
- the agreement should be renegotiated to provide a transport service at the most efficient cost to those who wished to avail of it, and
- should the discussions arrive at the question of buyouts for loss of the service, this should only apply to those who actually use the service provided up to now.
The Court again urges the parties to re-engage on the principles previously recommended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th August, 2009______________________
CON/MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.