Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87396 Case Number: LCR11290 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING - and - MPGWU |
Claim on behalf of ten Docker Foremen for a pay increase in respect of the 26th wage round and restoration of differentials on pay and conditions (basic pay, bonus and sick pay arrangements).
Recommendation:
6. Claim (a) 26th Round Increase:
The Court recommends that the basic rate and bonuses be increased
by 3% with effect from 1st June, 1986 and by a further 3% from 1st
December, 1986. The agreement should terminate on 31st May, 1987.
Claim (b) Restoration of differential on basic pay:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (c) Restoration of Differentials on bonus:
The Court recommends that following the conclusion of negotiations
with the checkers, the foremen should be afforded the same
opportunity to re-negotiate the bonus element of their pay.
Claim (d) Restoration of Sick Pay Scheme:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87396 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11290
CC87436 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11290
Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of ten Docker Foremen for a pay increase in
respect of the 26th wage round and restoration of differentials on
pay and conditions (basic pay, bonus and sick pay arrangements).
Background:
2. In February, 1987 the Union on behalf of the workers served a
claim on the Company in respect of the 26th wage round as
follows:-
(a) An increase in attendance bonus.
(b) A 12% pay increase.
(c) Improvement in sick pay arrangements.
(d) A differential for a senior foreman.
The Company rejected the claim and made the following offer:-
(a) A 3% increase on basic, overtime and attendance rates
from the 1st June, 1986 to the 30th November, 1986
followed by a further 3% increase from 1st December,
1986 to 31st May, 1987.
(b) An increase in the attendance bonus from #30 to #40 per
week.
3. This was unacceptable to the Union who sought restoration of
differentials in basic pay and bonuses previously in existence
over other groups of workers and restoration of benefits under the
sick pay scheme. As no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred in April, 1987 to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 6th April, 1987 at
which no agreement could be reached and on 19th May, 1987 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) In negotiations on the 1985 Comprehensive Agreement the
foremen were refused representation. These workers
have not had a direct input into those negotiations and
as a result their differentials have been eroded. The
foremen should not have been forced to accept the
conditions contained in the agreement as their pay
structure and conditions had already been established
since 1974. Following a meeting with the Company after
the 1985 Agreement it was agreed that the foremen
should have received the same increase in the cost of
living aspect of the agreement as other groups did.
The workers therefore received an additional increase
which reduced the shortfall in relativity to 18%.
(ii) The increases awarded to the dockers following Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10831 (of 20th November, 1986)
would be acceptable to these workers, but there must be
restoration of relativities - in the case of basic pay
to the situation in 1974 and in the case of bonus, back
to the situation in 1982. In 1974 the differential
between dockers and foremen in basic rates was 40%.
This has worsened to a situation at July, 1986
(assuming increases as per L.C.R. No. 10831) where the
differential is only 22.75% (details supplied to the
Court). There is a shortfall of 46.54% of #70 which is
equivalent to #32.57.
(iii) In May, 1978 an attendance bonus of #5 per week was
introduced for certain groups of workers - including
foremen, but excluding dockers due to the existence of
a separate bonus scheme. In 1982 the foremen were in
receipt of a bonus of #30 compared to one of #20 for
checkers, a differential of 50%. In the period 1982 to
1987 the differential between these workers and other
groups of workers was eroded (details supplied to the
Court). The foremen should now receive a bonus payment
of #75 per week in order to restore the differential to
the situation in existence in 1982.
(iv) There are now less foremen employed in the Company than
was the case prior to 1983 and they no longer have the
assistance of casual foremen. The foremen now have
more work to cover and are working to capacity and the
gross earnings of foremen should be examined in terms
of the hours worked.
(v) Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of the 1983 Comprehensive
Agreement (details supplied to the Court) clearly
outline the rights of the foremen to negotiate their
own pay and conditions. The decision to change the
conditions of the sick scheme without consultation with
the foremen was unfair. The conditions under which
these workers operate are far less favourable than for
other permanent workers and for management who have
retained the better sick pay arrangements. The
benefits under the sick pay scheme should be restored
to six months full pay and three months half pay.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) In recent years the Company has experienced massive
losses. For the last three years alone the cumulative
trading losses were in the order of #6.5m and in 1986
excluding interest charges on accumulated liabilities
the loss was #653,000. Average monthly losses have
increased and so far in 1987 there has been a
continuing deterioration in the Company's financial
position. (Details supplied to the Court).
(b) Due to high labour costs it is extremely difficult for
the Company to compete successfully with small ports.
As a result margins are being reduced to minimal levels
in order to attract business to Dublin Port. This
factor has also had a significant affect on the
Company's results for 1986 which were slightly higher
than expected.
(c) The 1983 Comprehensive Agreement which was negotiated
by the Union on behalf of all groups of workers
replaced the then existing terms and conditions of
employment. The Company does not consider it possible
to look at the situation in terms of pre 1983
conditions which would not be feasible. The Company
was in no doubt that the Union was representing all
groups of workers in the organisation during the
negotiations on the 1985 Comprehensive Agreement. No
guarantee or promise was ever given to the foremen that
differentials would be preserved. After the September,
1985 Comprehensive Agreement it was later agreed to
apply a special increase to the foremen's pay to give
them the same overall percentage increase as other
groups. This was the only group to receive an
additional increase and it would be inappropriate and
not relevant in the present circumstances to consider a
re-alignment on the basis of pre 1983 differentials.
(d) As a result of increases awarded to the dockers in the
26th wage round (Labour Court Recommendation No. 10831
of 20th November, 1986) there will be substantial
increases to the overall operating costs of the
Company, something it cannot afford. However, in
negotiating with this group of workers the Company
adopted a realistic approach in offering them the same
terms as the dockers. A greater increase than this
would not be warranted or feasible.
(e) No further productivity concessions were sought by the
Company from the foremen in contrast to the position of
the checkers where further productivity concessions
were being sought which would finance the increases.
Therefore, the Company can see no justification for
increasing the #10 per week productivity proposal
(attendance bonus). The gross earnings of the foremen
are very substantial and there is no scope for further
concessions.
(f) As part of the 1983 Agreement, a common sick pay scheme
was agreed for all groups and in 1985 the scheme was
again renegotiated and improved upon. The present
scheme with variations has now been in operation for
four years, and any changes would have significant
implications for the Company. Further improvements in
the scheme are provided for and will take place in
1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Claim (a) 26th Round Increase:
The Court recommends that the basic rate and bonuses be increased
by 3% with effect from 1st June, 1986 and by a further 3% from 1st
December, 1986. The agreement should terminate on 31st May, 1987.
Claim (b) Restoration of differential on basic pay:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (c) Restoration of Differentials on bonus:
The Court recommends that following the conclusion of negotiations
with the checkers, the foremen should be afforded the same
opportunity to re-negotiate the bonus element of their pay.
Claim (d) Restoration of Sick Pay Scheme:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
3rd July, 1987 --------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman