Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87655 Case Number: LCR11616 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 30 workers concerning the retention of guaranteed overtime and the retention of boat manning levels.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted for
the people to whom it was offered and that the overtime earnings
should be reviewed at the end of each of the next two years to
ensure that nobody loses more than the amount of the lump sum
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87655 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11616
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(2)
PARTIES: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 30 workers
concerning the retention of guaranteed overtime and the retention
of boat manning levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the elimination by the Company of its guarantee of
overtime during Summer 1986, a meeting took place on 20th
February, 1987, between the Company and four unions representing
staff. The Unions involved were the Marine Port and General
Workers' Union (the Union involved in this claim), Irish Transport
and General Workers' Union (ITGWU), Automobile, General
Engineering ad Mechanical Operatives Union (AGEMOU), and United
Stationary Engine Drivers Trade Union (USEDTU). At the meeting
the Company detailed its requirement to reduce overheads in all
sections in order to remain viable. There followed a series of
meetings between the parties to discuss the proposed changes. The
Company required a number of changes as follows -
General Duties Manual Section
Reduction in numbers from 16 to 8,
Elimination of all guaranteed overtime,
Reduction in boat manning from 3 to 2.
General Duties Mechanical Section
Reduction in numbers from 13 to 10,
Elimination of all guaranteed overtime,
Elimination of all unnecessary overtime,
Reduction in boat overtime manning from 10 to 5.
3. A meeting on 21st July, 1987, to work out a formula to cover
the loss of overtime was attended by the Company, the AGEMOU,
USEDTU, and MPGWU i.e. the union here concerned. The parties
agreed that the Company should take actual overtime earnings for
the year April, 1986 to April 1987 and compare these with the
estimated overtime earnings in the year to April, 1988. Any
shortfall to be paid in advance to each man. At a meeting on 11th
August, 1987, the morning session was to be devoted to wage
negotiations and the afternoon session to dealing with the
compensation for loss of guaranteed overtime in the General Duties
Mechanical Section. Agreement however was not reached on the wage
issue and the AGEMOU, USEDTU, and ITGWU agreed to seek
conciliation to resolve the issue. The MPGWU however stated that
they wished to continue dealing directly with the Company and said
that they would not attend any other meetings until the wage issue
was resolved.
4. The afternoon session took place, without the participation of
the MPGWU, (or the ITGWU, who were not involved in the claim) and
a settlement formula for the loss of overtime were reached with
the other unions. It was also agreed that this formula could be
applied for loss of earnings to -
General Duties Mechanical Section
General Duties Mechanical (Handipac) Section
General Duties Manual Section.
It was also agreed that un-necessary machine minding would cease
and that the number of men on overtime boat manning would be
reduced to 5. The Company conveyed these terms to the MPGWU but
these were rejected and the Union requested a meeting to negotiate
a settlement. The Company declined on the basis that the AGEMOU
and USEDTU had already agreed to the settlement. (Subsequent to
this the USEDTU withdrew its agreement). On 10th September, 1987,
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to a Court hearing on 5th October, 1987, the
parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Guaranteed overtime has been established as part of the
basic earnings the employees have had since 1973, when the
Company was formed. Since then the guarantee has been
renewed in subsequent agreements in 1979 and 1982.
2. Over the years the Company has had difficulty in getting
staff to work overtime in the winter months, which was
necessary to meet the demand for orders. This was achieved,
in some cases, by meeting the production output in the
standard working day and in others by guaranteeing the
availability of staff for at least 2 hours per night Monday
to Friday and all day Saturday during the Winter. The 'quid
pro quo' was to guarantee 1 hour per night Monday to Friday
for 22 weeks in the Summer.
3. The Company has refused to discuss the issues with the
Union. Meetings take place merely to inform the Union of
decisions already taken. No discussion has taken place in
relation to the General Duties Manual Section since June,
1986, and the losses have not been calculated by the Company
for staff in the Maintenance Section.
4. The Union believes that the Company has ignored the
reason for the guaranteed overtime which was to ensure that
labour would be available throughout the winter period under
poor conditions. The Union also believes that the Company
has made considerable savings as a result of redundancies in
a number of sections and the contracting out of work in the
Tipper Section.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The serious decline in tonnage over the last number of
years resulted in the Company requiring redundancies,
demanning and the elimination of guaranteed overtime. The
Company can no longer afford to pay for overtime when the
requirement for it doesn't exist. Overtime will still be
worked and paid for at the appropriate rates as an
operational requirement.
2. The Union agreed to a formula for compensation at a
meeting on 21st July, 1987, but withdrew its agreement at the
meeting on 11th August, 1987, as a result of inter-union
disagreement.
3. The Company's offer was accepted by the AGEMOU and USEDTU
for recommendation to their members. This indicates the
reasonableness of the Company's offer, representing two years
buy-out of overtime loss. If the Company now, hold separate
negotiations with the MPGWU then 'leap frogging' would
result, which would seriously affect industrial relations in
the Company.
4. It is normal where overtime is eliminated due to a
down-turn in business that no compensation is conceded to the
employees in question. The Company, in the circumstances,
has made a very generous offer, in order to maintain
industrial peace, which should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted for
the people to whom it was offered and that the overtime earnings
should be reviewed at the end of each of the next two years to
ensure that nobody loses more than the amount of the lump sum
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th January, 1988 John M. Horgan
B.O'N./P.W. Chairman