Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94331 Case Number: LCR14572 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AN BORD GAIS - and - AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the restoration of interest-free car loans.
Recommendation:
Given that this Company provides an essential service and taking
account of the Code of Practice on Disputes Procedures it is
imperative that parties within the industry adhere to agreements
and exhaust all the industrial relations procedures to resolve
disputes.
In this case, the Court finds that the Company is in breach of its
agreed work agreement. The Court recommends therefore, that the
Company and the Unions further discuss the introduction of the
scheme to harmonise the arrangements to apply in the Company,
these negotiations to be completed in a period of four weeks from
the date of issue of this Recommendation.
Failing agreement the Court will review the outcome of discussions
and will issue a definitive Recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94331 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14572
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AN BORD GAIS
AND
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the restoration of interest-free car
loans.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. An Bord Gais (the Bord) took over the Company (the
Dublin Gas Company) in 1987. The Company became the
Eastern Region of the Bord. Within Dublin Gas a car
loan scheme was operated which included an "interest-
free" loan arrangement.
2. The "interest-free" loan facility of #4,000 operated for
workers of the Company for a long number of years. In
January, 1992, the Bord refused to give an interest-free
car loan to a worker. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission which recommended that the
Company should negotiate change with the Unions. The
Company responded that the issue would be included in
the then ongoing negotiations on a new comprehensive
agreement.
3. In November, 1992, the Bord wrote to the Unions
informing them that from 1st January, 1993, all workers
(in Dublin Gas) would only be offered interest-bearing
loans. Workers were, however, allowed to apply for
loans under the terms of the existing agreement up to
31st December 1992.
4. The Unions rejected the new arrangements and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission A
conciliation conference was held on 7th March, 1994. At
conciliation, the Bord proposed to resolve the dispute
under the terms of Clause 4, Page 53 of the
Comprehensive Work Agreement:
"Compensation will be paid for losses due to
reduced earnings arising from loss of shift roster
or stand-by as follow:-
5 times the agreed weekly loss multiplied by each
year the rate has been held, to a maximum of 5
years".
5. This was unacceptable to the Unions as the payment
involved would be very small and not in proportion to
the loss suffered. No further progress was possible and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 17th
June, 1994, under the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 19th September, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In January, 1992, the Bord was directed by the Labour
Relations Commission to enter into negotiations
regarding its proposed change. The Bord agreed to do
this. However, no action was taken and the Board sought
to unilaterally impose its change again in January 1993.
2. The interest-free car loan had been in operation for 30
years without interruption. By unilaterally withdrawing
the scheme, the Company acted in breach of all agreed
procedures. It is a condition of employment of the
affected workers that they provide themselves with
transport and the withdrawal of the scheme will impose a
significant financial hardship on the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bord took over Dublin Gas in 1987 and since then it
has been providing the same benefits and conditions of
employment to workers in both organisations. There is
no interest-free car loan scheme in the semi-state
sector. The interest-bearing scheme is more beneficial
to workers and adequately compensates them for any
change in the car loan policy. The amount which can be
borrowed had increased from #4,000 to #7,000, mileage
rates have increased and the new loan scheme provides a
more tax efficient outcome which protects workers
against cumulative tax liabilities.
2. The Bord must have a standard scheme throughout its
operations as workers are liable to transfer from the
Eastern to other regions. The Company informed the
Unions of the change in November, 1993, and received no
objections. Since the introduction of the new scheme,
10 unionised workers have taken out interest-bearing
loans. The Bord has viewed this as practical acceptance
of the new scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given that this Company provides an essential service and taking
account of the Code of Practice on Disputes Procedures it is
imperative that parties within the industry adhere to agreements
and exhaust all the industrial relations procedures to resolve
disputes.
In this case, the Court finds that the Company is in breach of its
agreed work agreement. The Court recommends therefore, that the
Company and the Unions further discuss the introduction of the
scheme to harmonise the arrangements to apply in the Company,
these negotiations to be completed in a period of four weeks from
the date of issue of this Recommendation.
Failing agreement the Court will review the outcome of discussions
and will issue a definitive Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October , 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.