Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89641 Case Number: LCR12591 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Overtime claim arising from the unloading of a car carrying vessel. (M. V. European Venture). (2) Claim for payment during a period of work stoppage (M.V. River Majidun).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
particular regard to the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement, the
Court recommends as follows:-
Claim 1:
(M. V. European Venture).
The Company should increase its earlier offer and pay the two
gangs involved one days pay plus four hours at appropriate
overtime rates.
Claim 2:
(M. V. River Majidun).
The Union should accept that the men involved in the unofficial
stoppages of the 8th and 9th May should not be paid for the period
of the stoppages and should be subject to the normal disciplinary
procedure associated with clause 36.5 of the Comprehensive
Agreement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89641 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12591
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Overtime claim arising from the unloading of a car
carrying vessel. (M. V. European Venture).
(2) Claim for payment during a period of work stoppage
(M.V. River Majidun).
BACKGROUND:
2. Claim 1
Overtime (Car-carrying vessel M. V. European Venture).
On 25th March, 1989 the European Venture berthed in Dublin Port
with eight hundred and seventy eight cars on board. Two gangs of
dockers were employed to off-load the cars. Work commenced at
11.30 a.m. At 12.30 p.m. a finishing "read" was given for
6.00 p.m. Later the workers agreed to extend working time and
finished unloading at 6.35 p.m. Afterwards it was discovered that
due to an oversight twenty nine cars were still unloaded. These
cars were removed by non-docker personnel. Subsequently, the
Union claimed that work could have finished at 5.00 p.m. on
Saturday and the remaining cars off-loaded on Sunday -
particularly the twenty nine cars should have been removed by the
gangs on Sunday. Clause 23.2 of the Company/Union Agreement
states:-
"...When overtime is required to be worked men will be
advised that they will be working to 6.00 p.m.,
8.00 p.m., 9.00 p.m. or working to finish. If, due
to circumstances outside the Company's control (e.g.
crane breakdown, rain, lack of export cargo, etc.)
the working late or finishing "read" is not completed
or is abandoned, the Company will pay only until the
time worked. No "penalty" hours will be paid.
The payment for periods during which overtime is
worked will be as follows:-
Monday/Friday from 5 pm to 9 pm T + half.
from 9 pm T + 2
Saturday 8 am to 5 pm T + 1
Minimum payment-4 hrs.
Sunday &
Public Hols. Minimum payment-4 hrs. T + T + half.
The Union claimed overtime payment, as per the comprehensive
agreement, for the work that should have been completed on Sunday.
i.e. the two gangs be paid one day plus four hours at
time-and-a-half. The Company contend that procedures on Saturday
25th March were in accord with clauses 23.4 and 23.5 of the
comprehensive agreement, i.e.:
23.4 "on Saturday/Sunday, all ships may work up to
5.00 p.m. and ships that are finishing may work
up to 6.00 p.m."
23.5 "These hours may be reasonably extended by
agreement on any job in the event of unforeseen
circumstances."
They accepted responsibility for the oversight and subsequent
discharge of the twenty nine cars. Following local negotiations
the two gangs were offered overtime payment of one day plus one
hour, at Sunday rate. This offer was rejected and the dispute was
the subject of a Labour Court conciliation conference on 13th
June, 1989. No agreement was reached and a full Court hearing was
requested on 9th September, 1989.
CLAIM 2
Payment during a period of work stoppage (M. V. River Majidun)
2. On 26th April, 1989, the cargo vessel River Majidun commenced
off-loading timber, bags and containers. As a result of a rough
sea voyage some of the cargo was in a poor condition for
unloading. This resulted in a difficult and slower discharge. A
union representative advised the Company of the condition of the
cargo stow and of the possibility of workers who were unloading
the vessel loosing bonuses because of the slow discharge. It was
agreed that work would be monitored from 26th April, 1989 to 5th
May, 1989. Following discussions on 5th May the Company made an
offer of a compensation payment of #150 per man for the job. This
was rejected and a work stoppage took place, from 8.00 a.m. to
10.00 a.m. on 8th May, 1989. Further negotiations were held that
day. This resulted in an improved offer of #210 per man and was
accepted. Another work stoppage took place on 9th May, 1989 in
protest at the Company's decision to deduct payment for the two
hour stoppage on the previous day. Following further discussions
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court and a conciliation
conference was held on 13th June, 1989. No agreement was reached
and a full Court hearing was requested on 9th September, 1989.
3. The Court investigated both disputes on 28th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. CLAIM 1.
Overtime (Car Carrying Vessel M. V. European Venture).
1. The off-loading of the cars should have been completed on
Sunday, necessitating the payment of overtime to the two gangs as
per the comprehensive agreement, i.e. one day plus four hours at
time-and-a-half.
2. The claim is fully justified under the terms of the
comprehensive agreement which cannot be altered in any way to suit
a particular Company position.
CLAIM 2.
Payment during a period of work stoppage (M. V. River Majidun).
3. The Union does not condone unofficial work stoppages. The
ship was in an especially bad condition and should not have been
worked but co-operation was afforded to the Company.
4. The workers were incensed and frustrated because of the
inadequate nature of the first offer of #150 and because of delays
in dealing with other claims. Under no circumstances should
disciplinary action be taken and recorded against the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. CLAIM 1
Overtime (car-carrying vessel M. V. European Venture).
1. Discussions took place in accordance with the comprehensive
agreement and the gangs agreed to work after 6.00 p.m.
2. The matter would not be in contention but for the discharge of
the twenty nine cars by other than docker labour. The Company
accept responsibility for the oversight and for the fact that the
twenty nine cars should have been unloaded by dockers.
3. The discharge of the twenty nine cars on Saturday would
possibly have cost the Company an additional one hours overtime.
If the workers refused to work any later on Saturday, 25th March,
1989, the Company would have been forced to employ one gang for
Sunday overtime until twelve noon. One gang would be adequate to
discharge the twenty nine cars. (In accordance with clause 1
appendix 2 of the comprehensive agreement the Company is entitled
to employ any number of gang units it requires for any vessel
including car carriers) on any day. The Union is attempting to
force the Company to pay an undue penalty for its oversight in
relation to the twenty nine cars. Their claim for Sunday overtime
for two gangs is entirely without justification. The most the
Company can be expected to pay is one gang Sunday overtime until
12.00 noon.
CLAIM 2.
Payment during a period of work stoppage (M. V. River Mojidun)
4. The Company rejects the view that it handled the claim
inappropriately as it was dealt with expeditiously and in full
consultation with the union.
5. Clause 36.5 of the comprehensive agreement provides that
"an employee who disregards the Grievance Procedure and
takes unofficial industrial action in pursuit of a claim
or redress of a perceived grievance, will be deemed to
have automatically suspended himself without pay".
The two stoppages were without justification. To suggest
that the Company pay the men involved and not follow normal
discipline procedures would be contrary to common sense and
could encourage such similar behaviour in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
particular regard to the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement, the
Court recommends as follows:-
Claim 1:
(M. V. European Venture).
The Company should increase its earlier offer and pay the two
gangs involved one days pay plus four hours at appropriate
overtime rates.
Claim 2:
(M. V. River Majidun).
The Union should accept that the men involved in the unofficial
stoppages of the 8th and 9th May should not be paid for the period
of the stoppages and should be subject to the normal disciplinary
procedure associated with clause 36.5 of the Comprehensive
Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
__10th__October,___1989. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Chairman