Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89583 Case Number: LCR12623 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (C.H.C.) - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the contracting out of the hydrographic survey.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that the proposals of the Cork Harbour
Commissioners given all of the circumstances are reasonable and
should be accepted.
The Court notes that there will be no compulsory redundancies
arising as a consequence of this development.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89583 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12623
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (C.H.C.)
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the contracting out of the hydrographic
survey.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hydrographic Department in C.H.C. comprises the
Hydrographic Officer, the Assistant Hydrographic Officer, and an
assistant from the manual workforce. The assistant from the
manual workforce was granted voluntary redundancy at the end of
1988 and the vacancy has not been filled pending the outcome of
results of examination of the hydrographic operation. The
Hydrographic Officer who is sixty two requested that he be allowed
to retire on voluntary redundancy. This request together with a
need to extend the frequency of surveys in the lower harbour led
to a reappraisal of the hydrographic function.
3. As a consequence of the report on the re-appraisal, the Board
of the Cork Harbour Commissioners made a policy decision to go to
contract on hydrographic surveying, on the grounds that this would
provide the most economical system and would enable the
Hydrographic Officer to be made redundant as requested. The
decision would result in the Assistant Hydrographic Officer and
the Yard Assistant reverting to office and yard work respectively.
This was unacceptable to the Unions who are of the view that
contracting out is not necessary and that management's proposals
should have been discussed with them prior to the Board meeting.
Management's position, is that it is implementing a Board decision
and it can only discuss and negotiate on the effects of the
decision taken. On 24th July, 1989 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 26th July, 1989 and 30th August, 1989 at
which no progress was made and on 5th September, 1989 the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 18th
September, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management proposals should have been discussed with the
Unions prior to any recommendations to the Board. Such an
undertaking is to be found in a minute of a meeting held on
26th April, 1988 (details supplied to the Court), which was in
the context of clerical administrative restructuring being
negotiated at the time. An earlier letter from the
Commissioners in March, 1988 confirmed that hydrographic
activities were part of the rationalisation proposals which
management was awaiting the Union's acceptance of. While the
clerical administrative restructuring was agreed management
did not put forward proposals for the technical area.
However they then without prior discussions with the Unions
put forward a recommendation to the Board in July, 1989.
Management made a commitment that as and from 1st January,
1989 rates would apply to a general operative to remain and
work in the hydrographic survey section. This was agreed by
the Unions as a commitment to remain in the hydrographic
survey section.
2. Contracting out of the hydrographic survey work is not
necessary and an in-house system is the best option. The
Unions' estimate of an in-house system is much less than the
Commissioners and such a system would be economical (details
supplied to the Court). Management in its submission to the
Board stated that in-house automated surveying provided the
best control and flexibility, that the prices quoted by
contractors were exceptionally good and therefore may not
continue into the future and that in the event of this service
being unsatisfactory the Commissioners would have to purchase
equipment and revert to in-house surveying. Since 1979 the
workforce in the Commissioners has reduced significantly and
staff numbers have been reduced by sixty-one. The contracting
out of hydrographic survey work is a further stage in an
on-going process of contracting out other areas of work.
Normal agreed procedures were not adhered to as management's
proposals to the Board were not discussed with the Unions
prior to its decision. This procedure is a major breach of
normal industrial relations. In all the circumstances, the
hydrographic survey work should remain in-house.
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As a commercial enterprise the Commissioners must manage
its affairs efficiently and cost effectively. There is no
economic justification for the retention of in-house
hydrographic surveying (details supplied to the Court).
Management's recommendation to the Board was made after
careful consideration. The system used must provide the level
of service and quality required and costings were done on this
basis (details supplied to the Court). Investigations took
place for over a year in a genuine effort to come up with the
most economically viable manner of carrying out the
hydrographic operation. In the course of this staff were sent
abroad to evaluate alternative systems and therefore on an
informal basis the workers were aware of the ongoing
situation.
5. 2. No lay-off or job losses will occur as a result of the
Board's decision to go to contract. The voluntary redundancy
that will result is one that has been actively campaigned for
over a year both by the workers and the Union concerned. A
vacancy exists in the hydrographic department for an assistant
from the manual workforce. In line with current agreements
with the Union concerned management is prepared to negotiate
on any loss of earnings claim which may arise for the worker
who should have been appointed to the position. Contracting
has been an accepted practice for many years in the
Commissioners and has involved all unions and all areas of
work.
3. The C.H.C. is a commercial organisation the management of
which is committed to making the port of Cork viable. In
order to achieve a more efficient and cost effective port, all
functions are undergoing review and management is increasing
its efforts to market and expand the port. To this end, a
capital investment programme of #10m. is anticipated in the
next eighteen months. The decision taken by the Board is a
policy one as part of its statutory function. As such it is
not a matter for negotiation under the management/union
industrial relations procedures. Management's position in
this is to implement the Board's decision and to negotiate
with the Unions on the effects of such a decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds that the proposals of the Cork Harbour
Commissioners given all of the circumstances are reasonable and
should be accepted.
The Court notes that there will be no compulsory redundancies
arising as a consequence of this development.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___7th__November,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman