Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89280 Case Number: LCR12430 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PURCELL EXPORTS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 11 drovers for an improvement in wages and conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the claimants should be paid a lump sum of
#100 in respect of the period 1st April, 1987 to 31st March, 1988
and that the P.N.R. should take effect as from 1st April, 1988.
The Court also recommends that the Public Holiday Entitlement
should be as follows:-
1 day for every 4 boats - 1989
1 day for every 3 boats - 1990 up to a maximum of 8
days.
The Court recommends in relation to holidays that the 5 days Fall
Back/Top Up holiday be phased in as follows:-
1989 - 1 day
1990 - 2 days
1991 - 2 days
giving a total of 5 days in that year. The Court also recommends
that the Death-in-Service arrangements proposed by the Company
should come into effect when agreement is reached on this package.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89280 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12430
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PURCELL EXPORTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 11 drovers for an improvement in wages and
conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union originally submitted a claim to the Company in
March, 1987 in respect of a loading scale of pay, holiday
entitlements, an increase of 15% on the daily rate, pensions and
life assurance cover for the 11 drovers who load cattle onto boats
at the quayside. The drovers work side by side with the regular
dock workforce and their claim is for conditions similar to these
enjoyed by the regular dockers. The dispute was the subject of a
Labour Court hearing and subsequent recommendation (L.C.R. 12053)
in October, 1988. The Court recommended a new loading scale of
pay and further negotiations between the parties on the Union's
other claims. As a result of these negotiations the Company made
the following offer:-
1. The Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) to apply to
basic rates with effect from the 1st April, 1988. The
payment scale as recommended by the Court to be
implemented with effect from 1st April, 1988.
2. Public holiday entitlements as follows:-
1 day for every 5 boats - 1989
1 day for every 4 boats - 1990
1 day for every 3 boats - 1991
3. Death in service benefit scheme to be introduced from 1st
April, 1989.
4. Holiday entitlement:-
150-249 hours worked - 3 days
250-349 " " - 4 days
350-449 " " - 5 days
450-549 " " - 6 days
550-579 " " - 7 days
5. A payment of #10 would be made to drovers working on the
boat only (i.e. Hatch money).
This offer was conditional on a commitment from the Union to the
signing of a grievance and disputes procedure including referral
to a third party, and the setting aside of its claim for a pension
scheme and "fallback holiday entitlement" until the expiry of the
P.N.R. in March, 1991. The Union rejected the Company's offer and
as further local discussions failed to resolve the issue the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 13th February, 1989. A conciliation conference was
held on the 30th March, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 2nd May, 1989. A Court hearing was held on
the 18th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejected the Company's offer because (i) the pay
pause from April, 1987 to March, 1988 was not acceptable (ii)
the Company did not offer the five day fall back top up
holiday facility which is already in place for the regular
dockers (details of the Unions's proposal on this issue have
been supplied to the Court) (iii) the start date of the bonus
public holiday entitlement of 1 day for 3 boats should be 1987
not 1991 and (iv) the Company's request for the deferral of
the pension plan to the end of the P.N.R. (i.e. March, 1991)
is not acceptable to the Union.
2. While drovers are employed on a casual basis as required,
they are also classed as "regular" as it is always the same
people who are on-call and their section has remained
unchanged for many years, yet they do not enjoy the same
conditions as the regular dockers. The very nature of dock
work on a casual basis introduces uncertainty and all the
associated problems. In the case of regular dockers, the core
workers, this was recognised by the putting in place of a
pension scheme, death in service benefit, fall back/top up
holiday of 5 days and bonus holidays. This was done to give
the dockers' employment a semblance of security. The drovers,
while employed on a "required at will" basis are the regular
core workers of this shipping operation and should be treated
as such.
3. The Union is seeking a positive recommendation on pay
backdated to 1987 together with the bonus holiday pay as
claimed i.e. 1 day - 3 boats, and the 5 days fall back top-up.
The death in service cover is seen as essential to any good
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Three categories of worker are employed at the port,
regular dockers, (who have first call on all boats on the
south side of the port) supplementary dockers (who have second
call on all boats on the south side of the port) and the
drovers. The dockers are employed by Dreelan Shipping Ltd.
The 11 drovers are employed by Purcell Exports. All three
categories are represented by the Union and have the same
daily rate of pay. The drovers are seeking parity with the
regular dockers. The terms and conditions of employment that
are currently being sought by the drovers were mainly
negotiated with the regular dock workforce during a period
when there were in excess of 100 boats visiting the port each
year (i.e. cattle boats, container and paper boats). These
terms and conditions of employment were in recognition of
their "special status," a point that would be acknowledged by
the Union. At present however, only cattle boats are being
worked by all three categories and this has given rise to the
current claim. This point has been acknowledged in the
previous Labour Court recommendation which only provided for a
similar daily rate of pay to the regular and supplementary
dockers.
2. The Union's claim is further complicated by the likely
implications of any concessions to the drovers. It is most
likely that a claim will be lodged on behalf of the
supplementary dockers seeking parity with the regular dock
force or the drovers. This will add further to the already
uncompetitive cost structure of the port vis-a-vis other ports
in the region. The drovers are employed on a casual basis for
approximately 20-25 days per year. This level of activity
could not support the other conditions being sought by the
drovers i.e. 5 day fall back/top up on holiday pay and pension
scheme etc. There is a historical basis for the conditions of
employment being paid to the regular dockers and there is a
"special status" attaching to them. The Company's final offer
to the drovers is a fair and reasonable one and should be
accepted as a reasonable conclusion to the negotiations which
followed the issue of L.C.R. 12053.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the claimants should be paid a lump sum of
#100 in respect of the period 1st April, 1987 to 31st March, 1988
and that the P.N.R. should take effect as from 1st April, 1988.
The Court also recommends that the Public Holiday Entitlement
should be as follows:-
1 day for every 4 boats - 1989
1 day for every 3 boats - 1990 up to a maximum of 8
days.
The Court recommends in relation to holidays that the 5 days Fall
Back/Top Up holiday be phased in as follows:-
1989 - 1 day
1990 - 2 days
1991 - 2 days
giving a total of 5 days in that year. The Court also recommends
that the Death-in-Service arrangements proposed by the Company
should come into effect when agreement is reached on this package.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
7th June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O.D/J.C.