Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86756 Case Number: LCR10831 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LTD - and - MPGWU;ITGWU |
Various claims under the 26th wage round for approximately 160 dockers.
Recommendation:
5. Claim (a) - cost of living increase.
The Court recommends that the basic rate be increased by 3% with
effect from 1st June, 1986, and by a further 3% from 1st December,
1986. The agreement should terminate on the 31st May, 1987.
Claim (b) - service pay.
The Court recommends that service pay be increased to #4 after 20
years' service with effect from the 1st January, 1987.
Claim (c) - minimum bonus.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (d) - allowance for shifts.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86756 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10831
CC861332 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10831
Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Various claims under the 26th wage round for approximately 160
dockers.
Background:
2. The 25th round for the workers concerned expired on the 31st
May, 1986, and in a letter dated 30th June, 1986, the Unions
outlined their claims for the 26th round. These were as follows:
. cost of living increase of 12%,
. 35 hour week,
. increase in basic rates by the #10 undertaking given by
the Company in Labour Court discussions in 1985,
. increase in service pay rate,
. minimum bonus of #10,
. arrangement for holiday cover,
. allowance for shifts,
The Company responded on the basis that clause 39(2) of a recently
signed comprehensive agreement provided for cost of living
negotiations on pay only. It offered a four month pay pause from
the expiry date of the previous round followed by a 3% increase on
the basic rate from the 1st October, 1986, for twelve months. The
total agreement was to be of sixteen months duration. This was
rejected by the Unions and on the 7th August, 1986, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference held on the 27th August, was adjourned and
resumed on the 10th September. At the second conference the
Unions presented an amended claim which consisted of the
following:-
. negotiable cost of living increase of 12% for twelve
months (no pay pause),
. existing service pay (currently #2 per week) to be
doubled,
. a minimum bonus payment of #10 per day when working,
. an allowance for shifting from one job to another of #5
per man,
The Company responded by refusing to increase its offer beyond the
3% on basic but did indicate that the pay pause could be
negotiated. It also indicated it might be willing to discuss some
improvements in service pay at a later date. This would be
dependent upon a sustained improvement in the Company's
performance. The latter two claims of the Unions' were totally
rejected. As no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 29th September, 1986. A Court hearing took place on the
20th October, 1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The present weekly rate of pay for the workers
concerned is #178, which doesn't properly compensate
them in real cost of living terms. Labour Court
Recommendation 7650 (13th December, 1982), recommended
that the rate of pay for dockers should be #155 per
week. This was to cover the period to the 31st
December, 1983. The cost of living increases achieved
in 1984 averaged out in excess of 10%. However, for
the purpose of illustration, the shortfall of #155 plus
10% would have given a basic rate in 1984 of #170.50.
In 1985, increases of 7% were the norm and if one adds
7% to the rate of #170.50 then the workers concerned
should be enjoying a basic rate prior to this current
round of approximately #182.40. This clearly shows
that in cost of living terms, since Labour Court
Recommendation 7650, the rate of pay of the workers
concerned has fallen behind. Furthermore, the
claimants achieved no real cost of living increases in
1981 and 1982.
(b) The service pay of the claimants has not been adjusted
for some considerable time and still stands at #2 per
week maximum regardless of the length of service. The
substantial reduction in the workforce achieved in the
past couple of years would more than offset any
arguments that the Company would have regarding the
additional cost of conceding a considerable improvement
in the level of service pay for these workers.
(c) In negotiations last year to secure an agreement on
lay-offs, the Company argued that having achieved the
necessary number of redundancies, the remaining workers
could expect to earn at least #10 per day bonus. The
reality of the situation, as shown in the past year, is
that the average bonus earned by the claimants amounts
to approximately #24 per week (13% of basic). Labour
Court Recommendation 7650 recommended that a guaranteed
bonus of 10% be paid. That recommendation referred to
a workforce which was in excess of 300 men (presently
at 160), yet despite the considerable number of
redundancies and the considerable increases in tonnage
throughput in the past year, the actual bonus earnings
of the claimants here clearly failed to maintain
relative values.
(d) Since the introduction last year of the comprehensive
agreement, the Company has operated the manning and
flexibility clause (clause 21) with the full
co-operation of the Unions. Sub-section 21.3 covers
the position for the man or men remaining at the first
ship that the gang were read for, but there have been
many instances of men being required to move from ship
to ship and losing money because of it. The Unions
believe that an allowance should be paid in these
circumstances and are seeking at least #8 per shift.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company has recorded massive losses in recent
years, and in the past three years alone, the
cumulative trading losses are in the order of #6.5
million. In the period from the 1st January, 1986, to
the 31st August, 1986, the total trading loss is in the
order of #368,000 without interest charges on
accumulated liabilities being taken into consideration.
(ii) The Company's position as outlined in earlier
negotiations must be viewed against the above
background, and while there is some marginal recovery
in the disastrous trading position that has obtained up
to 1986, it is clear that the Company is still
returning significant losses. The underlying trend in
its 1986 position is of great concern for the Company
as it clearly demonstrates an increase in the average
monthly losses incurred this year.
(iii) One of the major problems facing the Company is the
extent of its labour costs and overheads which are
quite exhorbitant. This is primarily related to the
fact that the Company is obliged to retain 29 permanent
staff over and above requirements. Apart from the
surplus staff on the Company's payroll, the level of
utilisation of labour is extremely low, with each
employee working on average 2.50 - 3 days per week plus
whatever overtime is required. Additionally, it should
be explained that on days when there is no work for the
dockers, they are allowed to go home, with the
exception of a small number on stand-by duty
(approximately 15 employees).
(iv) The high labour costs referred to above, make it
extremely difficult for the Company to compete
successfully for business against the smaller ports and
ports which are in a position to employ casual labour
to carry out the same duties. Accordingly, the margins
in the Company's business are being reduced to minimal
levels in an effort to attract business to the Dublin
Port. This also has a significant bearing on the
Company's recent results.
(v) In the context of increasing pressures being placed by
customers to obtain stevedoring rates at the lowest
possible level, the Company is simply not in a position
to recover increases in their wage costs. This, plus
the Company's financial position, are the main reasons
why the Company feels fully justified in maintaining
its position on pay.
(vi) The Company is of the belief that its proposal
represents a genuine attempt to meet in some way, the
expectations of the workforce, notwithstanding the
disastrous trading results that have been reported.
The existing service pay is not radically at variance
with the vast bulk of service pay arrangements that
still obtain in the country. However, the Company has
indicated that in the event of there being a sustained
improvement in the Company's trading performance in the
future, that it will consider an adjustment to this
scheme.
(vii) The Unions' claim for a minimum #10 per day bonus when
working, contradicts their demand a year ago for an
incentive bonus scheme which was implemented in the
present agreement, represents a further wage increase,
and removes the incentive for productivity essential
for the survival of the Company.
(viii) With regard to the claim for the introduction of a
special #5 payment for the transferring between jobs,
it is again the Company's view that this claim must be
rejected. The terms of the flexibility agreement were
fully negotiated with the Union, and employees gained
by achieving enhanced earnings. The Company is not
willing to renegotiate the existing arrangements agreed
as recently as September, 1985.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Claim (a) - cost of living increase.
The Court recommends that the basic rate be increased by 3% with
effect from 1st June, 1986, and by a further 3% from 1st December,
1986. The agreement should terminate on the 31st May, 1987.
Claim (b) - service pay.
The Court recommends that service pay be increased to #4 after 20
years' service with effect from the 1st January, 1987.
Claim (c) - minimum bonus.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (d) - allowance for shifts.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_______________________
Chairman.
20th November, 1986.
D.H./J.C.