Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90347 Case Number: LCR12984 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of an Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. It is the view of the Court having fully considered the
submissions of the parties oral and written
(a) that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Rules of Agreement between the
Commissioners of Irish Lights and SIPTU and NEETU are
separate and distinct paragraphs in that they refer
specifically to different categories of worker. (Navigating
parties (paragraph 7) and Outstation duties (paragraph 8).
(b) that paragraph 7 (Navigating parties) has been operated
unchanged since 1972 on the basis that general operatives
were used on navigating parties.
(c) that the only limitation on the use of general operatives was
one of safety in that a general operative in a navigating
party was required to have seafaring experience.
Accordingly the Court finds:-
(i) that general operatives in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 7 are required to make themselves available as
selected by the Depot Manager for navigating parties to
take lightfloats to and from a dockyard or to and from a
lightfloat station in accordance with rates of pay outlined
in clauses 3 and 4 of that paragraph.
(ii) That paragraph 8 specifically refers to "outstation duty"
and has no reference to any work carried out under
paragraph 7.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90347 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12984
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of an Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns workers who are employed as general
operatives. On the 15th May, 1990 a navigating party which
included some of the workers concerned was selected to tow a light
float (unmanned light vessel) from Dun Laoghaire harbour to the
Liffey marine dockyard in Dublin for a refit. The Union advised
Management that its members were not prepared to do this duty on
the grounds that they had an option (which they were exercising)
not to be part of a navigating party under Clauses 7 and 8 of the
Company/Union Agreement. The Agreement is in force since 1972 but
the Union has only been a signatory to it since June 1990 (it was
negotiated by another Union to which the workers concerned
belonged until recently). The light float remained in Dun
Laoghaire but was towed to Dublin on the 25th May, 1990 without
the assistance of the workers concerned. The issue was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 17th May,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st June, 1990
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 18th June, 1990. General workers did form
part of the navigation party which took the light float back to
Dun Laoghaire on the 12th July pending the Court hearing which was
held on the 26th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 7 of the Agreement which refers to the taking of a
vessel to and from a dockyard or an out station. states
"There can be no guarantee that depot general workers will be
employed on these trips" The Union contends that this means
that no guarantee is given on either side that workers will be
members of the crew of these trips.
3. 2. Clause 8 of the Agreement states "There shall be no
compulsion on a man to undertake such outstation duties."
There is no ambiguity in this statement which gives the
workers the choice whether or not to participate in the
formation of a crew. The choice is entirely optional.
3. The Union, while accepting that working conditions with
the Commissioners of Irish Lights are unique and that
co-operation with these conditions has been forthcoming in the
past, nevertheless contends that there is no doubt that the
literal interpretation of the Agreement gives the workers the
option with regard to the formation of part of the crew for
any such trips (i.e. taking a light float to the dockyard or
to and from a light float station).
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's interpretation of Clause 7 of the Agreement is
incorrect. It was not inserted with the intention of
depriving or penalising general workers. The intent was to
ensure that in the interests of safety and efficiency only
general workers with seafaring experience will be used in
navigating trips. In the event of no general workers with
seafaring experience being available it gives the
Commissioners the option of making other arrangements.
2. The Union's contention that navigating parties constitute
outstation duty is incorrect and ignores the fact that the two
are identified separately in the Agreement. There are three
categories of work undertaken by general workers namely:
(a) Work at the lighthouse depot and within the locality
including navigating parties to a Dublin dockyard and
Dublin bay buoys, payment for which is in accordance
with lighthouse depot hours.
(b) Navigating parties to station sites and dockyards
outside Dublin payment for which is at composite
rate.
(c) Outstation duty involving work at light houses
assisting a lighthouse technician necessitating
periods away from home for up to 28 days. Payment
for this is not detailed in the Agreement, but is
paid in accordance with composite hours paid to
lighthouse technicians. This clearly indicates that
outstation duty is not a normal part of a general
workers duties but is carried out on a voluntary
basis. In such circumstances the personal
commitments of a general worker would be taken into
consideration and there is no compulsion on an
employee to undertake this work.
4. 3. Management was disappointed at the Union's refusal to
operate the Disputes Procedure as per paragraph 12 of the
Agreement and to abide by the standard procedure of agreeing
to carry out work under protest pending referral of the matter
to the Court. The statement of policy contained in the
introduction to the Agreement specifically formulated for this
group of workers states "in return for the Commissioners'
express policy of maintaining regular and secure employment
each employee undertakes to carry out in a spirit of
co-operation and goodwill, all duties within his capabilities
assigned to him by Management." Their failure to demonstrate
co-operation on this issue can only be a threat to the
security of employment for their present numbers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is the view of the Court having fully considered the
submissions of the parties oral and written
(a) that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Rules of Agreement between the
Commissioners of Irish Lights and SIPTU and NEETU are
separate and distinct paragraphs in that they refer
specifically to different categories of worker. (Navigating
parties (paragraph 7) and Outstation duties (paragraph 8).
(b) that paragraph 7 (Navigating parties) has been operated
unchanged since 1972 on the basis that general operatives
were used on navigating parties.
(c) that the only limitation on the use of general operatives was
one of safety in that a general operative in a navigating
party was required to have seafaring experience.
Accordingly the Court finds:-
(i) that general operatives in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 7 are required to make themselves available as
selected by the Depot Manager for navigating parties to
take lightfloats to and from a dockyard or to and from a
lightfloat station in accordance with rates of pay outlined
in clauses 3 and 4 of that paragraph.
(ii) That paragraph 8 specifically refers to "outstation duty"
and has no reference to any work carried out under
paragraph 7.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___16th___August,___1990. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman