Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90655 Case Number: LCR13102 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B. & I. LINE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the seniority of Marine Engineers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that officers rostered for duty in the posts
concerned in this issue have the necessary qualifications to the
legal and safety requirements of the posts.
It is the view of the Court therefore that it is with some merit
that the union contend that seniority should take precedence. The
Court in considering the matter has taken account of the Company
view that rank on board ship is a significant feature which needs
to be considered if order and discipline at sea is to be
maintained.
Accordingly given all the circumstances of the case it is the view
of the Court that having regard to the infrequency with which the
difficulty arises the issue be resolved as follows:-
That the officer carrying the superior certificate be rostered as
a second Senior 2nd Engineer with responsibility for Junior 2nd
Engineer duties and the fourth officer be rostered as Junior 2nd
Engineer with responsibility for the duties of 3rd Engineer, i.e.
Car Ferry - Chief Engineer, Senior 2nd Engineer, Senior 2nd
Engineer (with responsibility for Junior 2nd Engineer duties)
Junior 2nd Engineer (with responsibility for 3rd Engineer duties).
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90655 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13102
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B. & I. LINE
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the seniority of Marine Engineers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. This dispute concerns the criteria used for deciding the
rostering of duties in the Engineering Departments on board ship.
The Union claims that total service (in all ranks) should take
precedence over higher qualifications and shorter service where
there is no legal requirement for higher qualifications. The
Company does not agree with this view point.
2. The requirements for the Engineering Sections of B. & I.
vessels are as set out below:-
Car Ferries Legal Requirement
Engine Car Ferries
Chief Engineer Class 1 - Certificate
Senior Second Engineer Class 2 - Certificate
Junior Second Engineer Class 4 - Certificate
Third Engineer Class 4 - Certificate
Electrician
Ro/Ro Ro/Ro
Engine
Chief Engineer Class 1 - Certificate
Second Engineer Class 2 - Certificate
Third Engineer Class 4 - Certificate
Fourth Engineer Class 4 - Certificate
Electrician
Lo/Lo Lo/Lo
Engine
Chief Engineer Class 3 - Certificate
Second Engineer Class 4 - Certificate
3. A dispute arose on board the MV Leinster on 12th July, 1990
where a long serving senior 2nd Engineer was directed to serve as
3rd engineer in deference to a colleague with shorter service but
with a 1st Class (Chief Engineer's) Certificate. The officer
refused and as a result the sailing to Holyhead did not take
place.
4. After local negotiations during July failed to resolve the
problem, a conciliation conference was arranged. Conferences took
place on 24th July, 28th September, 16th October and 9th November,
1990 resulting in the following proposal based on time with 1st
Class certificates plus an allowance for earlier service:-
"(a) That the Company would use the existing 27 holders of 1st
Class Certificates in the positions of
1. Chief Engineer Car Ferry.
2. Senior 2nd Engineer Car Ferry.
3. Chief Engineer Ro/Ro.
4. Second Engineer Ro/Ro.
5. Chief Engineer Lo/Lo.
(b) The remainder would be on a seniority in the Company basis.
However for those with, or attaining, Second Class
Certificates 25% of time in the Company before this is
achieved to count, as well, 50% of time between achieving a
1st class certificate to count for seniority on list A.
Those in list B who achieve class 1 remain in their
seniority position until a vacancy in list A becomes
available either in the short or long term.
5. This proposal did not resolve the problem as the Company
insisted that when two 2nd Engineers are rostered the Engineer
with the higher certificate should retain the Second Engineer
position rather than the Engineer with the longer service. The
Union however contended that, in such circumstances, senior
service should take precedence over certificate when the
certificate is not legally required. This problem with the roster
occurs every seven weeks.
6. As agreement was not reached at the final conciliation
conference of 9th November, 1990, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 13th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union seeks to maintain Seniority of Service as the
determining factor for positions where superior certificates
are not required. Management have changed their stance on a
comprehensive agreement, to satisfy a status agreement of a
limited number of recently appointed (in the seniority
context) engineering officers.
2. The Union has facilitated the Company by blocking off the
first 27 positions for those with superior certification.
Recognising the Company's wish to have an extra Class I
certificate on board Car Ferries, the Union has agreed to
extend this requirement to Senior 2nd Engineer despite this
being over and above the legal requirement. The Union is
seeking to have positions of Junior 2nd Engineer and below
determined by seniority.
3. Service to the Company must take precedence over
certification where certification is not required. This is
the Union's understanding of the Agreement on Seniority.
Prior to the rationalisation of 1987, it was common practice
for the Junior 2nd Engineer to hold a class 4 certificate.
This resulted in a fixed rate for the position and ensured
that an officer with a lower certification could not earn a
higher rate than a Class 2 Certified Officer sailing in a
higher position as he was effectively debarred from the next
highest position of Senior 2nd Engineer Car Ferry.
4. In an effort to resolve the problem the Union put forward
the following proposals:-
(1) The Union for the first time was willing to recognise
the 2nd class certificate and grant a bonus to the
holders which would apply on completion of their Class I
certificate examination.
(2) To reduce the probability of rostering difficulties, the
Union proposed the following:-
Because the Ro/Ro Ferry has been re-classified as a
passenger Ferry, the Union agreed to extend to the
Freight Ferry the Class I requirement for Second
Engineers. This provides more positions for Superior
Certificates. Consequently, this would reduce the
amount of positions available for lower class
certificates.
5. The clash of Senior 2nd Engineers is a feature of the
roster and only occurs every 7 weeks. With careful rostering
this should only occur on 2 or 3 occasions a year. When this
happens seniority should be the determinant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present Seniority System (details supplied to the
Court) is comparable to that operating in other shipping
companies and has been operating satisfactorily for some time.
Despite this, Management has been willing to contemplate
change in order to respond to the Union representations on the
issue. The Company cannot however sanction a system by which
engineers by virtue of longer service in the Company would
take precedence over holders of Senior certificates for
positions below the rank of Senior Second Engineer. The
position of Senior 2nd Engineer is that of team leader of the
Engine-room reporting to the Chief Engineer. The Company
could not countenance a situation where because of
circumstances this officer was forced into a rank below that
of his normal subordinates.
2. The rank of Junior Second Engineer was established for the
primary purpose of creating a substantive rank for certified
engineers at that time. On the introduction of Car Ferries
the rank was retained to uphold the status of certified
engineers. Although there are occasions where non-certified
engineers are employed, at no stage (save for training) did a
certified engineer sail in rank below an uncertified engineer.
3. The Company recognises that those engineers who do not
hold certificates of competency have given many years of
service and have recognised this by giving, through rostering,
the substantive rank of Junior Second Engineer to the six most
senior of those below Class I certificate status. However
while the Company does employ uncertified engineers it is
expected that all engineers obtain certificates of competency
rather than certificates of service which do not require
examination. At certain times the rostering system requires a
senior certificate holder to drop down from Senior Second
Engineer to Junior Second Engineer. The Company would take
the view that the person with the higher certificate should
take the junior second engineer's position. Neither is it
acceptable to the Company to pay a higher rate to an engineer
who is not carrying out the duties of the higher position.
4. The Company's proposal at conciliation has shown its
willingness to compromise on this issue.
The effect of the compromise system was that:-
(a) There would be 27 positions designated for 1st Class
Certificate holders.
(b) The holders of these positions would be denoted as "A"
List" and would all be in possession of 1st Class
Certificates.
(c) "List "B" would comprise of all other certificate
holders ranked on a service in the Company basis.
(d) Those on List A would be senior to those on List B.
(e) Vacancies on the A List would be filled by those in List
B who obtain 1st Class Certificates.
(f) A methodology of advancement from List B to List A was
set down.
Management are against the out of sequence downgrading of senior
staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that officers rostered for duty in the posts
concerned in this issue have the necessary qualifications to the
legal and safety requirements of the posts.
It is the view of the Court therefore that it is with some merit
that the union contend that seniority should take precedence. The
Court in considering the matter has taken account of the Company
view that rank on board ship is a significant feature which needs
to be considered if order and discipline at sea is to be
maintained.
Accordingly given all the circumstances of the case it is the view
of the Court that having regard to the infrequency with which the
difficulty arises the issue be resolved as follows:-
That the officer carrying the superior certificate be rostered as
a second Senior 2nd Engineer with responsibility for Junior 2nd
Engineer duties and the fourth officer be rostered as Junior 2nd
Engineer with responsibility for the duties of 3rd Engineer, i.e.
Car Ferry - Chief Engineer, Senior 2nd Engineer, Senior 2nd
Engineer (with responsibility for Junior 2nd Engineer duties)
Junior 2nd Engineer (with responsibility for 3rd Engineer duties).
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__4th___December,__1990. ___________________
J. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman