Labour Court Database
File Number: CD91212
Case Number: AD9165
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: B & I LINE P.L.C. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 3/91 concerning the provision of transport for a docker.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91212 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6591
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: B & I LINE P.L.C.
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 3/91 concerning the provision of transport
for a docker.
2. There is a Company/Union agreement that transport (taxi
service) is provided for dockers to/from home when they start or
finish work outside of public transport hours. Prior to 1984 the
docker concerned lived in Clondalkin and he was provided with
transport by the Company in accordance with the agreement. He
then moved residence to Maynooth, Co. Kildare and used his own car
to commute to/from work. In 1990 he ceased using his car which
had become unroadworthy. The Company provided the docker with
transport to and from his father's house in Ballyfermot when
applicable. In 1991 the Union claimed that the docker should be
provided with transport between his workplace and his home in
Maynooth. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the matter on
5th March, 1991 and issued the following recommendation on 13th
I recommend that the Company offers and the docker accepts the
sum of #800 in settlement of this dispute, and on the basis
that it is personal to the docker and without precedent.
(the docker was named in the recommendation).
The Company sought clarification on the recommendation and the
Rights Commissioner agreed with the interpretation that the
docker, in addition to the #800 to be paid in full and final
settlement of the dispute, would be entitled to transport to and
from Ballyfermot (i.e. his father's address). The Company on 19th
April, 1991 appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 10th July, 1991.
4. 1. The Company/Union agreement on the provision of transport
does not specify any area/distances from the port. Areas such
as Maynooth, Celbridge, Lucan etc are now virtually city
suburbs and cannot be considered to far away for the provision
of transport by the Company.
2. Without prejudice to the overall agreement the Union is
prepared to accept as a compromise the compensation
recommended by the Rights Commissioner, on a personal basis.
The Rights Commissioner has confirmed the Union's
interpretation of the recommendation i.e. in addition to the
#800 to be paid in full and final settlement for the claim,
past, present, and future, as long as he resides in Maynooth,
the docker is entitled to transport to and from Ballyfermot.
3. 1. When the docker moved address to Maynooth he was advised
that the Company would not continue to provide him with
transport to and from work. The docker accepted this and no
transport was provided or claimed during the period 1984 to
2. The docker's position is not unique. There are other
dockers for whom transport is not provided because of the
distance between the port and their place of residence. The
distance from which the Company can be expected to provide
transport outside of public transport hours must be
reasonable. The distance between Maynooth and Dublin Port is
3. The Company is prepared to accept the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation on the understanding that it is
in full and final settlement of the claim and that there would
be no further liability for the provision of transport for the
docker. Alternatively the Company is prepared to provide
transport to and from Ballyfermot (this is the preferred
5. The Court finds the claimant was aware that transport to
Maynooth would not be provided. It is considered that in the
light of the above the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should
be amended as follows. That the claimant accept the sum of #800
in full and final settlement of the dispute and there should be no
further liability on the Company for the provision of transport or
alternatively that the claimant be provided and accept transport
to his parents house in Ballyfermot or any other reasonable
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.