Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89587 Case Number: LCR12550 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERRIES - and - SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND |
Claims by the Union for: (1) A basic wage increase of 15% for deck, engine, and catering ratings. (2) That pursers be put on officer pay grading. (3) That repairmen (who are classed as petty officers) should have their wages raised to the bosun's consolidated rate. (4) Claim by the Company that the Union should accept an increase of #2 (from #16.65 to #18.65) for the lashing down of trucks at Rosslare and Le Harve. GENERAL BACKGROUND: 2. There are 118 permanent ratings and 17 pursers involved in
Recommendation:
11. Claim I Basic Wages.
In the absence of any prior agreement between the parties to
exempt the claim from the terms of the P.N.R., the benefits of
which were first applied in July, 1988, the Union's claim for an
increase of 15% on basic wages is disbarred by the Programme.
Claim 2 Pursers.
The Court did not find grounds to uphold the Union's claim in
respect of pursers as it was not established that they were out
of line with their counterparts in other companies and in any
event the claim would be disbarred by the P.N.R.
Claim 3 Repair Man.
The Court does not consider that a sustainable case has been made
for an improvement in the rate of the repairmen.
Claim 4 Lashing.The Court considers that the increase offered by
the Company should be extended to #10 and should include lashings
at Cherbourg.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89587 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12550
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:
(1) A basic wage increase of 15% for deck, engine, and
catering ratings.
(2) That pursers be put on officer pay grading.
(3) That repairmen (who are classed as petty officers)
should have their wages raised to the bosun's consolidated
rate.
(4) Claim by the Company that the Union should accept an
increase of #2 (from #16.65 to #18.65) for the lashing down
of trucks at Rosslare and Le Harve.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. There are 118 permanent ratings and 17 pursers involved in
this dispute. The Company was formerly Irish Continental Line
a subsidiary of the Irish Shipping Company, before the latter
went into liquidation. Agreement could not be reached at local
level,and the matters were referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on 17th August, 1989. No agreement was
reached at the conciliation conference held on 31st August, 1989.
On the 6th September, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 7th September, 1989.CLAIM I: Basic wage increase of
15%.
Background:
The Union has claimed a wage increase of 15% on the basis that
the wage rates of the Company have fallen out of line with
comparable employments and that no increase other than the
national wage rounds have been received over the past 13 years.
The Union contends that the claim was submitted prior to the
reaching of agreement on the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.). The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the liquidation of the old Company the Union
were in negotiation for a wage increase, but were told that
matters would have to be finalised before this could be
considered. It is now two years since the Company has been
taken over, and it is time for the matter to be addressed.
Wages in the Company for seamen are below the national
average. Fifteen years ago, they were significantly higher
than those of land based workers. In the past 13 year
period nothing has been paid except the national wage
agreements, while other employees have achieved increases
above and beyond this level. Very moderate wage claims were
made in the past in order to aid the Company in difficult
times. The time has come however, to redress the balance.
The workers should not be penalised for the support they
gave the Company in the past.
2. Other sea-going personnel have succeeded in getting
wage increases greater than the national wage rounds,
namely the ships deck and engine officers, with the
exclusion of pursers. There is no good reason why the
workers represented by the Union should be penalised. A
secret productivity deal was arrived at in 1984 between the
ships officers and the Company which resulted in the pay of
this group of personnel outstripping the pay of the workers
here concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The total remuneration package of the ratings in Irish
Ferries does not compare unfavourably with that of other
companies when time-on and time-off and annual leave
situations are taken into account (details supplied to the
Court). The second phase of the P.N.R. has been applied in
the Company with effect from 1st September, 1989. This
covers all increases which are due for the duration of the
next twelve months. A "no cost increasing" claims clause
contained within the agreement precludes this claim from
being pursued.
Claim 2: That pursers be put on officer pay grading.
Background:
Pursers on board Irish Ferries have the same general conditions
and living quarters as other officers. Some of these
improvements have been conceded in recent years (details supplied
to the Court). They are not however, on the same rate of pay.
The Union's claim is that this should be redressed, and the
pursers put on officer pay grading.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The pursers in Irish Ferries act as the catering
officers aboard ship. Their function is a vital one, and
of equal importance to that of other officers. There is no
good reason why they should not not be paid accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Pursers aboard Irish Ferries are considered officers.
The rates of pay for different officer groupings vary
however, depending on the qualification and technical
aspects involved in the jobs. The rate of pay of the
pursers reflects the qualifications required for that job,
and is traditionally lower than other officer grades, due
to the higher level of qualifications required in these
other officer positions. The situation is similar in all
shipping companies.
2. Under the terms of the P.N.R. the claim is cost
increasing, and therefore precluded.
Claim 3: That repairmen have their wages raised to the bosun's
consolidated rate.
Background:
Repairmen, are the senior ratings in the engine room and are
classed as petty officers. The Union is claiming that their
wages be raised to that of the bosun's consolidated rate because
of the responsibilities they carry. The Union contends that this
applies in other shipping companies which carry repairmen. The
Company disputes this contention, and rejects the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is no reason why the repairmen in the Company
should be placed in an anomalous position in relation to
other shipping lines. They carry out vital and difficult
work for which their colleagues on other lines receive the
bosun's consolidated rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Irish Ferries is the only Irish shipping company that
has a repair man on board during sailings. The rate of pay
for the repair man has been agreed at the level of a senior
rating. The job involves general handyman duties and as
such was graded above the ordinary ratings' grade. Under
the terms of the P.N.R. this claim is precluded as it is of
a cost increasing nature. There is no justification
whatsoever at this stage for altering the rate of pay of
the repairmen.
Claim 4: Claim by the Company that the Union accept an offer of
a #2 increase for the lashing down of vehicles.
Background: Lashing down refers to the securing of certain
vehicles (mainly trucks) on deck prior to the commencement of the
voyage. It was carried out on agreed terms at Rosslare and Le
Harve. No agreement governed the lashing down of vehicles at
Cherbourg. The amount paid to date is #16.65 per week. The
Union claim that this is totally inadequate. The Company was
prepared to offer a #2 per week increase, and to enter
negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on lashings at
Cherbourg. The Union rejected the offer.The workers have ceased
the lashing down of vehicles since the 31st August and the
Company issued protective notice. The Company undertook to
withhold any action on the notice pending the issue of this
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The remuneration for the lashing down of vehicles is
totally inadequate in the Company. There has been a steady
increase in the volume of the work over the years. This
has not been recognised by the Company. The Company's
offer of a #2 per week increase is insufficient. A
significant level is required to satisfy the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Lashing is, and always has been, an integral part of
the duties of a seaman in Irish Ferries. No significant
change has taken place in the number of vehicles being
lashed (details supplied to the Court).
On the other hand, due to the change in time-on/time-off
arrangements and the increases that have taken place in
annual leave, the ratings spend 5/6 weeks less on board
than they did in 1979. There is currently in place an
allowance of #16.65 for lashing in addition to the basic
rate of pay. The value of this additional allowance has
increased 50% faster than the wage increases over the same
period of time. The Company made an offer of a #2.00
increase based on the overall number of lashings that are
carried out, including Cherbourg. No agreement is in place
for lashing at Cherbourg and the Company are prepared to
enter into negotiation with a view to giving an additional
allowance to cover this port. With the exception of the
situation in Cherbourg, the Company would take the view
that this is a cost increasing claim and therefore, is
precluded under the terms of the P.N.R.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. Claim I Basic Wages.
In the absence of any prior agreement between the parties to
exempt the claim from the terms of the P.N.R., the benefits of
which were first applied in July, 1988, the Union's claim for an
increase of 15% on basic wages is disbarred by the Programme.
Claim 2 Pursers.
The Court did not find grounds to uphold the Union's claim in
respect of pursers as it was not established that they were out
of line with their counterparts in other companies and in any
event the claim would be disbarred by the P.N.R.
Claim 3 Repair Man.
The Court does not consider that a sustainable case has been made
for an improvement in the rate of the repairmen.
Claim 4 Lashing.The Court considers that the increase offered by
the Company should be extended to #10 and should include lashings
at Cherbourg.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
______________________
8th September, 1989. Chairman
P.F./J.C.