Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90126 Case Number: LCR13108 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DREELAN SHIPPING LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of fourteen supplementary dockers for parity of pay and conditions of employment with regular dockers.
Recommendation:
9. The Court is of the view that concession of the claim would
clearly be in breach of the Programme for National Recovery the
terms of which have been implemented by the Company. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90126 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13108
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DREELAN SHIPPING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of fourteen supplementary dockers for parity
of pay and conditions of employment with regular dockers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company acts as general stevedores and ships agent in the
port of Waterford and its business consists mainly of livestock
shipments to the Middle East. During the loading of a livestock
vessel there are 3 categories of workers involved.
1. Regular Dockers: This section consists of 6 men and has
first priority on all vessels on the south side of the
port.
2. Supplementary Dockers: Comprises of 14 workers who
supplement the regular dockers as required.
3. Drovers: This section comprises of 11 and is responsible
for herding cattle onto ships and into pens.
The regular and supplementary dockers load nuts and hay onto the
ships.
3. In March, 1988 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of the
supplementary dockers for an increase in pay and an improvement in
conditions of employment (details supplied to the Court). At a
local meeting in June 1988 the Company offered the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) for a 3 year period in
addition to an adjustment of holiday hours and public holiday
schedule from 1 day for every 120 hours worked to 1 day for every
100 hours worked. Holiday pay was paid in June 1988 and Christmas
1988 in accordance with the terms of the agreement reached.
4. The Company confirmed the terms of the agreement in writing on
12th August, 1988 but omitted the holiday hours and public holiday
hours schedules. The Union subsequently sought the inclusion of
these sections and in April, 1989 the Company presented its total
package in writing. This was rejected by the workforce who
maintained that the Company's proposals were not as they
understood them to be when they voted and accepted them in June,
1988.
5. Following the rejection of the Company's position as it was
recorded in writing, the supplementary dock section lodged a claim
in August, 1989 for parity with the regular dock section. The
Union is seeking (a) priority of work, (b) #3,000 death in
service, (c) pension rights of #520 per annum at 65 years of age,
(d) top up/fall back holiday pay of 5 days and (e) public holiday
entitlement (bonus pay) of a maximum of 8 days related to 1 day
for each 3 boats worked or part thereof. The Company rejected the
claim and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 6th October, 1989. Conciliation conferences
were held on 13th December, 1989 and 27th February, 1990. As no
agreement was reached the parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing scheduled for 8th May, 1990 was postponed at the request
of one of the parties.
6. A Labour Court hearing was held in Waterford on 6th November,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Because of the nature of the Company's business both
groups of dockers perform exactly the same duties (details
supplied to the Court) and work the same hours and ships.
2. Up to June, 1989 the drovers had no conditions of
employment with the exception of daily rates plus overtime.
Following lengthy negotiations and the issuing of Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR12430 the drovers received an agreement
with the employer Purcell Exports which for the first time in
their employment gave them the same conditions as the regular
dockers with the exception of the pension. This resulted in
the drovers having more beneficial conditions that the
supplementary dock section.
3. The Court is asked to bear in mind the complexities
created by casual dock work, the uncertainty of employment,
the pay structure, daily rate and all the problems of
insecurity associated with such work. The fact that 17 men
employed in the regular dock section and as drovers have the
same conditions of employment whilst 14 men employed in the
supplementary docks section have not, has given rise to
frustration and problems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The claim lodged by the Union in March, 1988 was clearly
in excess of the terms of the PNR.
2. There has never been a parity relationship between regular
and supplementary dockers in the past. The terms and
conditions of the regular dock section were negotiated at a
time when there was in excess of 200 vessels per year loading
on the south side of the port. This included cattle boats,
paper boats and container boats. The 8 regular dockers had
the supplementaries fill in where necessary.
3. The cost of loading a livestock vessel in Waterford is
already far higher than in other ports thus making it almost
impossible to attract business. Concession of the Union's
claim would seriously worsen this situation.
4. Because of problems in the industry the parties concluded
agreements on Friday 26th October with both the regular dock
section and the supplementary section for a two year period -
these would be seriously jeopardised should the claim be
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court is of the view that concession of the claim would
clearly be in breach of the Programme for National Recovery the
terms of which have been implemented by the Company. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__6th___December,__1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman