INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Transport of employees.
2. The Company has two plants, one in Inverin and the other in Spiddal, Co. Galway. It currently employs 145 people.
In 1976, the Company introduced a mini-bus service to transport, at the time, 90% of its workforce, travelling from Galway city. Currently there are six employees availing of this service.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of six of its members, regarding the withdrawal of the Company mini-bus. Discussions took place at local level and the following offer was made by the Company:-
(a) An alternative service to be provided by Spiddal Hackney Ltd for a minimum of 2 years and to operate from Carnmore Cross. The weekly return fare per passenger would be £12 from town and £15 from Carnmore Cross.
(b) Each member of the group to receive the following in compensation:-
£12 x 80 weeks = £960 or £15 x 80 weeks as appropriate.
(c) The driver of the mini-bus to be paid 80 weeks x 7.5 hours overtime.
The offer was rejected by the Union.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th of May, 1997. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of November, 1998.
3. 1. The transport service was a condition of employment for over 20 years for workers travelling from Galway city.
2. The withdrawal of this service would make it impossible for a number of these employees to travel to work.
3. The service should be provided for a further 3 years for the 6 employees. Each employee should receive a sum of £4,000 in compensation. Compensation for loss of overtime at the rate of 3 times the annual loss should be paid to the driver of the mini-bus.
4. 1. The service was introduced when 90% of the workforce availed of it. At present only 6 workers use the service, therefore, it is difficult to justify its existence.
2. The offer made by the Company is a fair and reasonable one.
3. The Company feels that to continue this service for only six workers would create problems among other workers who have further to travel. Complaints of favouritism have already been received from such workers.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions and the background to this case, recommends that in return for acceptance by the employees of the Company proposals, the Company offer be amended as follows:-
(1) The proposed alternative service to be paid for by the Company for 2 years.
(2) Compensation to be paid to each member of the Company as proposed:
£960 or £1,200 as appropriate.
(3) Service to be maintained for 2 years.
(4) Compensation of 96 weeks at 7.5 hours overtime or equivalent to be paid to
the mini-bus driver.
In return for the above, the mini-bus collection to be discontinued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th December, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.