Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8871 Case Number: LCR11749 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the right to drive hired-in van.
Recommendation:
5. The Court can appreciate the anxiety of the employees
concerned. However in view of the fact that no duties are being
removed from the drivers and that the chemical analyst has
traditionally driven a car in the course of his duties the Court
considers that the Company's proposal is not unreasonable and
accordingly recommends that it be accepted by Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8871 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11749
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BORD GAIS EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the right to drive hired-in van.
BACKGROUND:
2. Late in 1987 the Company decided to hire a van which would be
used by a chemical analyst to bring equipment needed by him to
carry out sampling and measurement tests at various locations
throughout the national gas system. Prior to that the chemical
analyst would have used his own car to transport the equipment.
However the equipment now needed was too bulky and the Company
decided to hire a van and have it driven by the chemical analyst.
The Union objected to this and claimed that one of the five
driver/handymen should drive the hired-in van. The Company
rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 25th November, 1987 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 27th January, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. On 28th January, 1988 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 2nd March, 1988 in Cork.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no prescriptive right or precedent within the
Company to the sole right of driving "hired-in" transport by
any staff group.
2. Since its foundation BGE has had various staff categories
driving "hired-in" transport as required e.g. craftspersons, C
& I technicians etc.
3. The Development/Flexibility Agreement (1982-1985) provided
for on-going salary increase in return for flexible work
practices. The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 11,472
confirmed this view.
4. The Company cannot accept that a staff member is not
entitled to drive any form of transport where driving is
incidental to the main function of the post.
3. 5. The acquisition of the utilities in Limerick, Clonmel,
Waterford, Cork and Dublin has put major operational and
financial strains on the Company. Consequently all operations
must be carried out in the most efficient and cost effective
manner.
6. To accede to the Union's claim would, in effect, be
tantamount to providing a staff member with a chauffeur.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the construction of the national pipeline, the
drivers transported all types of equipment throughout the
country. In particular, they carried equipment to demonstrate
to the farming people the advantages of natural gas. These
demonstrations were carried out at all locations along the
path of the national pipeline.
2. It is not the function of a chemical analyst to transport
his equipment in company or hired-in transport. The only
other people who use Company vehicles are fitters and this is
accepted by all concerned as being essential to the smooth
operation of the Company.
3. In these days of insecurity of employment, it is
reasonable for our members to express their concern in the
manner they have as they feel their job security threatened by
other staffs carrying out their functions.
4. It is the drivers/handymen function to drive hired-in. Up
to sometime ago driving duties was the major part of their
job. The workers fear a further erosion of their positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court can appreciate the anxiety of the employees
concerned. However in view of the fact that no duties are being
removed from the drivers and that the chemical analyst has
traditionally driven a car in the course of his duties the Court
considers that the Company's proposal is not unreasonable and
accordingly recommends that it be accepted by Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th March, 1988
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.