Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87366
Case Number: LCR11357
Section / Act: S67
Parties: ENNIS HANDLING SYSTEMS - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Claim by the Union to have the Company replace one of its commercial vehicles.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim
that the truck be replaced. It does recommend that the parties
commence negotiations on compensation for losses which the driver
may have incurred as a result of the loss of driving duties.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87366 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11357
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11357
Parties: ENNIS HANDLING SYSTEMS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS')
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union to have the Company replace one of its
commercial vehicles.
Background:
2. This dispute arises from the Company's decision not to replace
a truck which it took off the road in November, 1986. The worker
concerned had been employed by the Company since September, 1980
as a driver/helper and was assigned to the truck in question. In
November, 1986 the Company assigned the worker to general
operative duties. The Union claimed that the truck be replaced
and the worker restored to his position. The Company rejected the
claim. No agreement was reached at local level and on 6th April,
1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 4th May, 1987
but no agreement was reached and on 5th May, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 17th July, 1987, earlier dates
were unsuitable to one or other of the parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker mentioned to the Company a number of times,
that the truck needed to be serviced but was constantly
told not to bother getting it repaired as it was going
to be replaced. Even after the truck was taken off the
road in November, 1986 the worker was still told that
the Company was in the process of purchasing a new
truck. It was only after a meeting in early January,
1987 that the Company informed the Union that it had
made a decision not to replace the truck.
(ii) The worker objected to being transferred to the
workshop because he had been employed as a truck
driver. The Company's offer to make him redundant was
also rejected by the worker as he made it clear that he
wanted his job as a truck driver.
(iii) The Company has engaged outside contractors to carry
out the work which would have been done by the worker.
(iv) The worker has been at a loss of #50 per week while the
truck is off the road. This is made up of #30 loss of
overtime and #20 travelling expenses which he didn't
have when he had use of the truck.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The level of business available to the Company at the
moment does not justify maintaining the truck as
claimed by the Union.
(b) The Company has made alternative arrangements through
greater use of private hauliers and in other cases,
customers making their own collections. This method of
operation is far more efficient to the Company.
(c) The Company has re-deployed the worker to general
operative duties on the same rate of pay, #167.12 per
week.
(d) The worker has always been involved in duties other
than driving. While he may have spent most of his time
driving, he also carried out some general operative
duties.
(e) The Company's decision not to replace the truck was not
taken lightly, but was taken in the best interests of
the Company in extremely difficult trading
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim
that the truck be replaced. It does recommend that the parties
commence negotiations on compensation for losses which the driver
may have incurred as a result of the loss of driving duties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
10th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.