Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9057 Case Number: LCR12810 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
The re-organisation/rationalisation of the Board's Berthing Service.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, and the
additional arguments put forward at the hearing the Court
recommends as follows in respect of the claims made:-
(a) The Company's offer on pay should be increased to #8.50
per week at the max of the scale.
(b) The Union should accept the Company's general proposals
for the provision of reliefs as the Company has given
assurance that the safety requirements will not be
compromised as a result. In the event of a casual
vacancy continuing in excess of two weeks however,
relief should be provided.
(c) The Union claim should be conceded.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9057 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12810
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AND SEAMENS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. The re-organisation/rationalisation of the Board's Berthing
Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Berthing Masters currently operate from three stations
in the Port i.e. North Wall, Alexandra Quay and South Bank
Quay. The Board proposes to open a new Central Station
(located near the Graving Dock) and to transfer personnel from
the three existing stations. It has also proposed a
rationalisation plan for the Berthing Service, to coincide
with the opening of the new station.
2. Following lengthy discussions the Union negotiators and
Board reached agreement on the proposed plan. The agreement,
amongst other provisions, stipulated that:-
(1) The agreed manning level for the Central Station is
one day man and twelve Berthing Masters.
(2) In addition to their normal berthing duties,
Berthing Masters will undertake all the duties
appropriate to coxswains of the Harbour Master's
launch.
(3) Berthing Masters and Graving Dock Gatemen will
receive a lump sum payment of #280 and an
approximate weekly pay increase of #5.
(4) Graving Dock Gatemen on overtime will report for
duty in the case of No 2 Dock at "turn on" time
plus one hour and in the case of No. 1 Dock at
"turn on" time.
The agreement as negotiated was rejected by the workers
concerned with the re-organisation on the basis of :-
(A) the compensatory pay increase to Berthing Masters
being inadequate for the additional duties
proposed.
(B) The provision of relief cover from the Graving Dock
being inadequate for new manning levels.
(C) The reporting time for Graving Dock Gatemen (Dock
No. 2) attending for overtime being altered.
3. Further local negotiations failed to produce an acceptable
agreement. The matter was referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court in September, 1989. It was the
subject of a conciliation conference on 6th November, 1989.
No agreement was reached and following two further local
meetings both parties requested a full Court hearing, on 10th
January, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 13th
February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
(A) COMPENSATORY PAY INCREASE:
3. 1. The proposed new rate of pay for Berthing Masters would
yield an increase of #5.72 per week. Their duties and
responsibilities would be considerably extended (details of
existing and proposed duties supplied to the Court). The
Unions sought an increase of #20 per week i.e. #14.30 per week
more than that which eventually emerged. Concession of the
increase sought would leave the Board with savings of 17%.
The 17% savings does not take account of the additional
substantial benefits accruing from the proposed arrangements
in respect of reliefs and from the free Police Launch Service
(details of proposed agreement supplied to the Court).
Acceptance of the #5.72 increase as proposed would yield an
approximate 22% in savings to the Board. Workers are not
prepared to assume the additional onerous and extensive
responsibilities for the increased rate of pay proposed.
2. The proposed terms of settlement effectively fulfil all
the Board's original objectives. They provide for a highly
efficient, modern Berthing Service, combined with a Police
Launch. The new service will be provided for at least 25%
less than the cost of the present Berthing Service. The
minimal concession sought by the workers concerned with the
reorganisation would absorb less than 25% of the Board's
savings.
(B) Relief Cover
3. The proposed new arrangement would envisage a watch
system manned by three Berthing Masters and a day man
(Berthing Master). It would also abolish relief cover for
absences (sick leave, annual leave etc) if two workers per
watch were on duty. The proposals for relief cover are not
only unacceptable but they would render the watch system
inoperable if two movements were to occur simultaneously or if
the bridge required raising.
4. Undermanning has serious safety implications, especially
during inclement and hazardous weather conditions. Workers
are not prepared to expose themselves to the stresses and
danger accompanying staff shortages for any prolonged period.
It is acknowledged that there are periods during which reduced
manning could function effectively. Having regard to this and
to settlement requirements, workers would be prepared to work
undermanned for a limited period of one week. After one week
of understaffing full manning is required.
5. The day man (Berthing Master) must be replaced at all
times. There is no cost implications in conceding this. It
merely means modifying the savings which would accrue to the
Board from the reduced provision for reliefs as against the
current situation.
6. Berthing Masters currently operate from three stations
in the Port area. Undermanning in any one station would not
have the same implications as undermanning in the new Central
Station, where all marine related activities for the entire
Port will be monitored.
(C) Graving Dock Gatemen - Dock No. 2 (Overtime)
7. The agreement as negotiated provides that "Graving Dock
Gatemen on overtime will report for duty, in the case of No. 2
Dock at "turn on" time plus one hour. The effect of this will
be a reduction in overtime, at No. 2 Dock, of one hour. The
proposal is petty and harmful. Its merits in terms of savings
is minimal but is enormous in terms of opposition. The
Graving Dock compliment provides relief for the entire Harbour
Service. Earnings are largely dependent on access to
vacancies temporarily arising as a result of absences.
Earnings will be affected by the reduction in the overall
number of posts and by the proposed restricting arrangement
for the filling of casual vacancies. As Graving Dock Gatemen
will suffer the biggest financial loss under the new
arrangement, a reduction in their overtime earnings is
unacceptable.
Board's Arguments:
(A) Compensatory Pay Increase
4. 1. The Board originally proposed to reduce the manning of
the Central Station to nine workers. During discussions the
Union claimed that the Harbour Master's Launch crew should be
restored to its original manning level of three - there is
only one day worker on this duty at present (a Berthing Master
in charge, working 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., who does not operate
within the agreed watch). The Board agreed to maintain the
level of Berthing Masters in the central Station at thirteen
(12 Berthing Masters and one day man) provided:-
(i) the then Launch crew member be absorbed into the
Berthing staff, and
(ii) the Berthing Masters would undertake the duties of
the Launch man in addition to their normal duties.
The Union accepted the proposal but at a later stage claimed
an increase of #20 weekly as a compensation for the extra
duties. The Board indicated that its commitment to a manning
level of thirteen was conditional to the additional duties
being undertaken by the Central Station crew. The Board was
prepared to go back to the original position of nine workers
for the Central Station and to the original status for the
Harbour Master's Launch. The Union rejected this approach and
sought to negotiate on compensation, suggesting that the
matter could be settled on the basis of a #6/#7 weekly
increase. An increase of approximately #5 per week was
accepted by both parties.
2. The increase as negotiated was on the understanding that
it would not be used as a jump off point for future
negotiations. The Board's offer was made on foot of an
amended claim by the negotiating committee for #6/#7 per week.
3. The Union is arguing, that the savings alleged to be
accruing to the Board by way of reductions in manning levels,
should be taken into account. A special phased increase of
10% granted under a separate agreement in 1986, more than
compensated for the reduced manning achieved between that time
and the commencement of negotiations.