Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87789 Case Number: LCR11736 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
(a) M.V. Teutonia. (b) Washing-up time.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) M.V. Teutonia:
The Court decides that the decision of the Arbitrator, based as it
is on his inability to establish the exact finishing time, is not
a "fundamental breach of the letter or spirit of the Agreement".
The Court does not therefore set aside his award.
Claim (b) Washing-Up Time:
The question of Washing-Up time was not decided by the Arbitrator
and the Court cannot therefore deal with the issue as an appeal.
The Court therefore makes no recommendation on this issue.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87789 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11736
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(2)
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) M.V. Teutonia.
(b) Washing-up time.
BACKGROUND:
2. The container vessel M.V. Teutonia commenced operations under
the Liebherr Crane at South Bank Quay at 8 a.m. on the 8th
January, 1987, with a compliment of seven dockers. The tally
checker recorded a finishing time of 10 p.m. and the workers were
paid accordingly. At a meeting on the 22nd January, the port
committee claimed that the dockers should have been paid up to 11
p.m. (T+2) as per agreement, as it was after 10 p.m. before they
finished duty. At a meeting on the 2nd February Management
rejected the Union's claim. This was unacceptable to the Union
which also claimed that an agreement of ten minutes washing-up
time existed and that by the time the men had washed-up on the
night in question it was well past 10 p.m. Management denied any
agreement on washing-up time existed. As no local level solution
was possible the Union referred the issue of the finishing-time to
arbitration.
At the arbitration hearing on the 27th February, the Arbitrator
said he found it difficult to establish if the ship finished at 10
p.m. or later. He felt a compromise of an ex-gratia payment of
one hour's basic pay should be paid. Neither party was agreeable
to this decision and on the 20th October, 1987, the Union referred
both issues to the Labour Court under clause 36, Stage 7 of the
Comprehensive Agreement between the Company and the Union (this
necessitates both parties to undertake, before the investigation,
to accept the recommendation of the Court). On the 8th January,
1988, the Company agreed to the referral. A Court investigation
was held on the 11th February, 1988.
Claim (a) - M.V. Teutonia:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants, having finished their work, were informed
that there were further containers to be handled by the
foremen and they remained at the vessel and completed the
operation. The Union maintains that they did not finish until
after 10 p.m. (including time to wash-up) and that they are
entitled to be paid the double hour as per agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A finishing time of 10 p.m. was recorded by the tally
checker, the docker foreman, the ships superintendent and the
checker foreman.
2. The port committee's assertion that the checker foreman
recorded a finishing time of four minutes past 10p.m. is
contradicted by the entries in his daily record books (details
supplied to the Court).
3. Management is reluctant to pay the one hour's basic pay
recommended by the Arbitrator because of the danger of setting
a precedent.
Claim (b) - Washing-up time:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Washing-up time has been part and parcel of the
operation for many years and has never been questioned by the
Company. Even since this issue arose on 8th January, 1987,
the workers have been allowed time to wash up.
2. The workers handle many types of cargoes which make it
absolutely necessary for their personal safety and hygiene to
wash up afterwards.
3. The suggestion that the workers should wash up in their
own time is unacceptable and is unprecedented in industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There was no discussion, much less agreement, on
washing-up time in the Labour Court talks of 1985. The
current Comprehensive Agreement which resulted from those
talks, makes no reference to washing-up time.
2. From October, 1985 to 8th January, 1987, 112 ships
working at the South Bank Terminal have finished within ten
minutes of the hour without any claim being made for
washing-up time. Container ships run on such a tight schedule
that it is often necessary for them to work right up to the
hour. The Company believes that but for the disagreement over
the finishing time of the M.V. Teutonia there would have been
no claim for washing-up time.
6. 3. The Company has been experiencing serious financial and
trading difficulties in recent times. Any award which would
change the present system of working could result in
considerable irrecoverable costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) M.V. Teutonia:
The Court decides that the decision of the Arbitrator, based as it
is on his inability to establish the exact finishing time, is not
a "fundamental breach of the letter or spirit of the Agreement".
The Court does not therefore set aside his award.
Claim (b) Washing-Up Time:
The question of Washing-Up time was not decided by the Arbitrator
and the Court cannot therefore deal with the issue as an appeal.
The Court therefore makes no recommendation on this issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th March, 1988 ----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman