FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Relocation of two Artic Drivers from the Airport Business Park site to the Oak Road Clondalkin site.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of two of its members employed as artic truck drivers by the Company. The dispute relates specifically to the Employer's proposal to relocate the drivers from its site located at the Airport Business Park to its Oak Road Site based in Clondalkin, Dublin 22. It is the Union's claim that the proposed relocation of the drivers will have a significant financial impact on them as a result of the loss of earnings and increased travel costs. The Union is of the view that the drivers are being subjected to relocation based on their terms and conditions of employment and not as a service requirement for the Company. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that as part of a cost-saving initiative there is a business requirement to relocate the drivers.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 the 3rd December, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th January, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants will experience a significant financial loss as a result of the proposed relocation.
2. The Union contends that the Employer has not explored all potential solutions before reaching its decision to relocate these two particular drivers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that it proposes to compensate the Claimants for the financial loss resulting from their relocation.
2. The Employer asserts that it proposes to maintain guaranteed overtime hours which it previously planned to discontinue.
3. The Employer contends that it must seek the savings associated with the relocation of the drivers in order to remain competitive and viable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the points made at the hearing.
The Court recommends that the parties re-engage, locally in the first instance, and subsequently with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission in line with their normal procedures if necessary. The parties should consider the matter before the Court in the wider context and seek to conclude a comprehensive agreement which addresses the range of matters referred to by the parties at the hearing and in their submissions. The parties, in their engagement, should seek to ensure that disagreements as regards matters of fact are examined and resolved.
In the event that agreement on the comprehensive range of issues arising is not achieved the matter should be referred to the Court in the normal manner following engagement at the Workplace Relations Commission.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
15th January 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.