Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86940 Case Number: LCR10912 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BAOARD - and - CRAFT UNION GROUP |
Claims on behalf of 65 craftsmen for a weekly bonus based on rate of discharge of ships and for the payment of a guaranteed period of overtime in respect of the availability of craftsmen to work overtime.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the circumstances to which the bonus and
attendance payments apply are exceptional and therefore should not
be extended to other grades of workers. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____18th__January,__1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86940 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10912
CC861539 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10912
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
AND
CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of 65 craftsmen for a weekly bonus based on
rate of discharge of ships and for the payment of a guaranteed
period of overtime in respect of the availability of craftsmen to
work overtime.
Background:-
2. Since 1963 cranemen employed by the Board have received a
weekly bonus of about #20 per week, based on rate of discharge of
ships. The scheme was designed to effect a speedier discharge of
cargo. The cranemen are also quaranteed a minimum of five flat
hours extra per week for being available at any time to work
overtime. The maintenance craftsmen want the bonus and minimum
hours payment applied to them since they argue that they
contribute to the cranemens' bonus by maintaining the cranes and
other facilities used by the cranemen. Local level negotiations
failed to resolve the issue and on the 18th September, 1986, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on the 11th November,
1986, (earlier date not suitable to one of the parties), but no
agreement was reached and on the 26th November, 1986, the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 15th December,
1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The basis for the Unions' claim is that if a bonus is
being paid, all workers in that employment are a
contributing factor in achieving the bonus earnings.
The Unions contend that without the maintenance of the
cranes by the craftsmen, in order to keep them in
first-class condition, the cranemen could not hope to
achieve the bonus payments, as these are based on
tonnage.
(b) The Unions also refer to the fact that any pay
agreement reached by the craftsmen is passed on to the
cranemen, (as was particularly evident in the
settlement of the craftsmen's dispute which included an
analogue agreement), while the bonus enjoyed by the
cranemen is confined to that particular category.
(c) A minimum of five flat hours overtime availability
money is paid to cranemen. The Unions believe that
this overtime availability money should be extended to
include craftsmen since they too are available for
overtime work as necessary. Some members have to work
regular overtime on crane maintenance.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The bonus scheme for cranemen was introduced in 1963
to meet a unique set of circumstances. At no stage
since then has a formal claim for the extension of
such a scheme been submitted by the craft unions.
The Board argues that there is no basis for the
claim - just because one group has a condition of
employment doesn't mean everyone else should get it.
(ii) Concession to the craftsmen would inevitably result
in concession to all employees at a cost of #600,000
per annum. The Board feels it should not now be
expected to correct a perceived anomaly twenty-three
years later, which is beyond its ability to finance.
(iii) Since 1975 the Board has negotiated special
increases for craftsmen and others based on
productivity. The scope for introducing further
productivity measures based on an incentive bonus
scheme would be extremely limited. Given the nature
of the Board's business, which is essentially the
provision of services for vessels and cargoes,
arriving randomly, in different modes, type of
vessel, and point of origin, it is difficult to see
on what basis an overall incentive scheme could be
introduced which would result in these services
being offered more efficiently and at a lower cost.
(iv) The Unions' claim is rejected on the basis that
overtime is an absolute condition of employment and
that there is no delay for cranemen, because the
Board must ensure that the appropriate manpower is
available to discharge ships. To this end the
D.P.D.B. has also made special arrangements with the
craft unions representing fitters and electricians.
These arrangements provide for an overtime roster
system, whereby a fitter and electrician are in
attendance everytime a crane is working on overtime.
This roster provides that each of them works a week
on overtime in turn.
(v) The Unions also contend that cranemen assisting
craftsmen in maintenance work on cranes enjoy a
bonus for this work. The hours spent by cranemen on
this work as a proportion of total crane driving
hours is very small. Only hours actually driving
cranes during maintenance is taken into account for
bonus purposes. The actual figures are - total
driving hours 14,222 hours - the hours assisting in
maintenance were 220 hours. This in the Board's
view does not justify the introduction of an
incentive scheme for craftsmen.
(vi) The Board does not accept that these special
arrangements create a precedent for quaranteed
overtime for each employee, whether overtime is
necessary or not. Such extension would result in a
very substantial additional cost to customers and
would be commercially disastrous for the Board.
(vii) The Board has indicated at both local and
conciliation discussions that it is prepared to
discuss with the fitters and electricians on the
overtime roster system any reasonable alternative
methods to cover overtime working.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the circumstances to which the bonus and
attendance payments apply are exceptional and therefore should not
be extended to other grades of workers. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____18th__January,__1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman