INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
TRUX TRANSPORT LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Loss of overtime earnings.
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to a claim for loss of overtime earnings on behalf of two workers employed by the Company. The Company is involved in the transport business delivering goods to the grocery trade. It currently employs 50 people and has depots in Dublin and Cork.
The Union's position is that the two employees (Driver and Driver's helper) had their rosters changed unilaterally by Management and as a result incurred a significant loss of overtime earnings.
The Company's position is that it operates in an extremely competitive market and due to financial pressures had no option but to change rostering arrangements. It is also claimed that there were difficulties in relation to goods being returned having not been delivered to the Company's customers. The Company also claims to have had other difficulties with regard to the work performance of the Driver.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th April, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th February, 2007, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The two workers in the case had their rosters unilaterally changed by Management without discussion or agreement.
2. The change did not occur as a result of a loss of business. The duties in question were transferred to other Drivers which resulted in a significant loss of overtime earnings for the two claimants in this case.
4. 1. The Company operates in an extremely competitive environment. The change in rosters was necessary due to the business demands at the time.
2. Due to increased volumes on the delivery route, an articulated lorry was required to deliver each Tuesday. As the Driver involved in this case did not have the appropriate licence, he could not carry out the deliveries.
3. The Driver refused to carry out deliveries without a Helper, adding unnecessary expense to the Company. The Driver in question no longer works for the Company and the current Driver operates the delivery route without the need for a Helper.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of two workers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings which occurred between April 2005 and April 2006 when the Claimants were removed from a particular route, which they had operated for a number of years.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the Company’s offer to compensate the two workers should be increased to €1200 for the Driver and €1000 for the Driver’s Helper and this should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th February, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.