Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD95319
Case Number: LCR14841
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: TOYOTA IRELAND LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the handling of new product.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
In the interests of improving relationships the Court would
recommend that the parties institute the monthly discussions as
previously agreed.
The Court does not consider it unreasonable that the workforce
handle the new product.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the new product be handled
as proposed by the Company.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95319 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14841
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TOYOTA IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the handling of new product.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 90 people in the importation and
distribution of Toyota and Lexus cars, commercial
vehicles and industrial vehicles. The dispute relates
to the stores area where the Union represents 18 workers
who handle approximately 56,000 different inventory
items.
2. Last year the Company decided to stock, and distribute
to its dealers, supplies of car-care products to be used
in the preparation of second-hand cars for re-sale. The
workers refused to handle the new product as they claimed
that its introduction represented diversification and
should have been negotiated.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 4th
April, 1995. No progress was possible and on 23rd May,
1995 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 10th
July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is proposing to act as an agent for another
Company and to distribute a wide range of products.
This is a significant change in the duties of the
workers and it will involve significant extra work. The
Company has no plans to expand its workforce.
2. The Company is seeking to expand its profitability by
taking on a new product at no cost. It is unreasonable
to expect the workforce to take on the additional duties
without a share in the benefits which will accrue to the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The product falls within the range of products normally
handled by the warehouse. The question of prior
consultation did not arise. The Company is not
diversifying from its core business. There are no
different handling or recording procedures involved and
no noticeable increase in workload.
2. The Company considers the Union's claim for monetary
compensation as being in breach of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW). The product would
represent only a minute proportion of the warehouse
turnover.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
In the interests of improving relationships the Court would
recommend that the parties institute the monthly discussions as
previously agreed.
The Court does not consider it unreasonable that the workforce
handle the new product.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the new product be handled
as proposed by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th July, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.