LCR21610

• WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

It is a matter of concern to the Court that a large part of the hearing was spent attempting to define the exact nature of the claim before the Court. The Trade unions and the employer did not share a common understanding of the remedy being sought by the Trade Unions and that was a source of difficulty for the Court in determining the exact nature of the dispute between the parties.

The Court ultimately established that the Trade Unions contended that the deployment of ‘universals’ if such there was on 17^thMarch 2017 occurred without the normal level of consultation. The employer disputed this and contended that no practice of consultation existed with regard to deployment of ‘universals’ on occasions like this in the past and that it had followed normal procedure in deploying 62 ‘universals’ on that day. The Trade Unions contended that the absence of consultation in advance resulted in a breach of agreement on the day. The employer contended that nothing happened on 17^thMarch 2017 which was out of the ordinary practice within the company as regards the deployment of ‘universals’ and that no agreement was breached.

The Court also established that the Trade Unions sought compensation for the drivers who worked ‘universals’ on that day and who worked 6 hours across a spread of 7.5 hours while being paid 7.15 hours X 3 in respect of that day should receive compensation of 1.5 hours pay at overtime rates in response to the claim.

It was common case that, separately to the within matter, the parties are in ongoing discussions with regard to schedule rules generally.

It has proven impossible for the Court to establish undisputed clarity as regards historical practice in terms of consultation or the deployment of ‘universals’ on ‘one off’ occasions albeit that there is no dispute between the parties that such deployments have occurred regularly throughout the history of the company’s operation.

In all of the circumstances the Court recommends as follows:

• 
  •The parties should consider the matter of the deployment of universals at the ongoing discussions as regards schedule rules generally.

• 
  •Recognising the level of disagreement between the parties as regards the facts of historical practice, the current matter should, in the interest of good industrial relations and without prejudice to the position of either party before the Court, be resolved by payment to each driver of a sum equivalent to 45 minutes pay at appropriate overtime rates. This payment is in resolution of this dispute and should not be taken as having any general application to the deployment of ‘universals’ or to be taken as a precedent in any circumstance into the future.