Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8728 Case Number: LCR11077 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - ITGWU |
Claim, for compensation for loss of earnings, for six crane drivers, due to cessation of operation of grab cranes.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, in view of
the fact that the elimination of the cranes in question was due
both to a reduction in trade through the port and competition from
equipment owned by other firms, does not recommend concession of
the Union's claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8728 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11077
CC861844 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11077
Parties: CORK HABOUR COMMISSIONERS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, for compensation for loss of earnings, for six crane
drivers, due to cessation of operation of grab cranes.
Background:
2. On 1st January, 1985, the Harbour Commissioners withdrew from
operation three of the four cranes located at the South Jetty.
(The last remaining crane has since been scrapped). The decision
was made because utilisation of the cranes in recent years had
diminished considerably, the capacity and speed of discharge was
surpassed by other cranes in the port and the frequent breakdowns
and major costs associated with maintenance. Arising from the
decision the crane drivers were re-assigned to other work and as a
result lost a number of plus payments, which they would have
received had they continued in their previous jobs. The Union
sought compensation for the loss of earnings, amounting to 2.50
times the annual loss, adjusted for periods of sick leave. The
Union argued that compensation on this basis was in line with
existing practices. The Commissioners rejected the claim, arguing
that the crane drivers income consisted of a basic and plus
payments from various sources, which varied according to the level
of port activity and it was not possible to attribute these
variations to any one cause. The Commissioners informed the Union
that it was policy not to compensate for trade fluctuations.
Further, the Commissioners advised the Union that the crane
drivers will be transferred to alternative duties, they will
retain their differential pay rate for a period of time
commensurate with their service as crane drivers, unless they are
appointed to vacancies with a similar or higher differential.
Agreement could not be reached locally and on 6th November, 1986,
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for a settlement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 17th December, 1986, and the issue
as referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Cork on 25th
February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union as advised in Autumn, 1984, that it was the
Commissioners intention to scrap three grab cranes at
the South Jetty, Cork. The plans for 1985 were to have
one remaining old crane and the installation of a new
crane. This led to crane driver's expectations of
continued employment and no loss of earnings. In fact,
no new crane was installed, despite continued pressure
from the Union and now the last remaining crane has
been scrapped. As a result the crane drivers have
suffered a substantial loss in earnings (details
supplied to the Court).
(b) The Commissioners in 1984, stated that the reason for
the scrapping of the cranes was the high maintenance
costs associated with keeping them operational. They
are now using the argument of the loss of trade, which
does not stand up as according to their own figures
trade into the port has increased on the previous two
years.
(c) The crane drivers must be cushioned against the
substantial loss off earnings which they have suffered
and will continue to suffer in the future. The Union
cannot understand the attitude being adopted by the
Commissioners in this matter, as many cases similar to
this case have been resolved amicably.
Commissioners' arguments:
4. (i) Since 1966, the Commissioners operated four cranes and
the crane drivers, as part on an operating agreement,
enjoyed rates of pay, overtime earnings and tonnage
bonus appropriate to their duties. The cranes, which
were built almost forty years ago were bought second
hand. Due to a number of reasons, including age,
capacity and speed of the cranes, changes in the size
of ships, trade recession and competition, utilisation
of the cranes has, in recent years, diminished to the
extent of their total elimination.
(ii) The Union has been advised as follows:
- Crane drivers will be transferred to alternative
duties.
- They will retain their differential pay rate for a
period of time commensurate with their service as
crane drivers, unless they are appointed to
vacancies with a similar or higher differential.
- No loss of employment.
- No compensation.
(iii) The Commissioners decision not to grant compensation is
taken for a number reasons. The Commissioners have
never accepted liability for fluctuations in earnings
associated with trade, which is dependent on the
decision of port users to hire or not hire the cranes.
The Commissioners are not in a monopoly situation and
have had to face the fact that other crane operators
are cheaper and more efficient. The cost of
maintaining the cranes has been an excessive burden
over the years, resulting in continuing losses.
(iv) Reference has been made in discussions about previous
precedents in paying compensation for loss of earnings
- some of them in connection with crane operations.
However, previous compensation settlements applied in
different circumstances, in different times and
resulting from different negotiations. Due to the
considerable reduction in utilisation and excessive
cost of maintenance, there is no option but to
withdraw, for the present, from crane operations on the
City Quays and there is no justifications for, nor
availability of funds for payment of compensation,
particularly when continued employment is ensured and
promotional opportunities maintained.
(v) The Commissioners intend to provide crane facilities on
the City Quays, but any consideration of this will be
dependent on cost competitiveness, likely utilisation
and equipment needs in the port. Container traffic at
Tivoli, which utilises the Commissioners equipment, is
flourishing, but equipment needs replacing. Similarly
equipment is needed for the newly developed deep water
berth at Ringaskiddy. Given the lack of financial
resources, the options for priority provision of
equipment must be carefully evaluated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, in view of
the fact that the elimination of the cranes in question was due
both to a reduction in trade through the port and competition from
equipment owned by other firms, does not recommend concession of
the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
23rd March, 1987.
B.O'N./J.C.