Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89913 Case Number: LCR12731 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B. & I. LINE - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of four straddle-carrier drivers for:- (a) consolidation of height money and (b) inclusion of the fourth man for payment of overtime.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the claims directly before it.
On the question of the consolidation of height money there have
been no changes in the conditions of the job which would warrant a
claim for consolidation and in the light of the terms of the
Agreement signed in November last, the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Having regard to the matter of overtime for the 4th man the Court
is of the opinion that the terms the Company has agreed are
equitable and does not therefore recommend concession of the
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89913 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12731
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B. & I. LINE
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four straddle-carrier drivers for:-
(a) consolidation of height money and
(b) inclusion of the fourth man for payment of overtime.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. On the 14th February, 1989, the Unions submitted the following
claims:-
- consolidation of height money into basic pay,
- inclusion of the fourth man for payment of overtime,
- bonus to be applied to Saturday/Sunday working,
- manning levels to be increased to five.
The Company rejected the claims in March and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference on the 18th May was adjourned to allow
further local level discussions to take place. Three local level
meetings failed to resolve the dispute and a further conciliation
conference was held on the 11th December. This also failed to
make any progress and the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 18th December, 1989. Disagreement arose at the hearing as to
what exactly had been referred to the Court. The Unions claimed
that all the original issues were to be dealt with but the Company
claimed that only the issues of height money and overtime for the
fourth man were before the Court. This view was confirmed by the
I.R.O.'s report and it was agreed that the Court would therefore
only recommend on the two issues.
NOTE: A Company/Union Group Pay Agreement was formally ratified
on the 1st November, 1989, on behalf of the ICTU, the
individual unions involved and the Company. It covers the
two year period from the 1st July, 1989 to the 30th June,
1991 (details supplied to the Court).
CLAIM (A) - Consolidation of Height Money.
BACKGROUND:
3. The claimants currently receive height money of #23 over 6
days (#3.86 per day) for working the straddle carriers which
requires them to work 40/50 feet up in the machine for two hours,
with one hour down. They are seeking to have this payment
consolidated into basic. The Company has rejected the claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for consolidation of height money is based on
the fact that workers in the maintenance area (both
craftworkers and general operatives) receive height money for
working these machines. This is consolidated into their basic
pay since 1986 and they have therefore gained on increases
since.
2. The craftworkers and general operatives already in receipt
of the consolidated height money are required to do
maintenance on the machines only from time to time while the
claimants operate the machines on a full-time basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. This claim is based on a small number of craft workers
whose height money is consolidated. A fragmented rate
structure in the craft area was traditionally the cause of
many problems when compared to N.J.I.C. up-town rate. In an
effort to overcome these problems the Company agreed, as part
of the 1986 rationalisation, to consolidate, as part of a
general package with that section, the relevant craft rate
into what was to become known as the B. & I. rate. It is
important to note that the four drivers opted to leave the
craft area and drive the straddle carriers with the full
knowledge that the height money was not consolidated.
2. Docker crane drivers who also enjoy height money payments
do not have it consolidated. They only receive it when they
are in attendance and the crane is working. To the claimants
however, the height money is almost a guarantee.
3. The consolidated payment for height which the craft group
enjoy on a standard week is considerably less than that
received by the claimants.
CLAIM (B) - Inclusion of the fourth man for payment of Overtime.
BACKGROUND:
6. Under a 1987 agreement the agreed manning levels for the
straddle carriers was three. The Unions subsequently claimed that
the workload was too great and the Company agreed to a fourth man
being assigned to the area but on the understanding that he would
not be paid after 6.00 p.m. In effect, when the four men are
working on overtime, the Company is only paying for three. The
Unions are seeking to have the fourth man paid overtime but this
has been rejected by the Company.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. At the time of the 1987 agreement those in the section
considered the proposed manning levels as unacceptable and all
but one opted for voluntary severance. Since then those
involved have argued that the work was too much for three men
and an increase in manning was required.
2. At the time the demand for extra manning was so great that
those in the section were prepared to accept anything to ease
the situation. The present situation where four men share
three mens' overtime pay is unacceptable and the agreement
must be altered to ensure full payment for each man.
3. Despite Company claims to the contrary, the claimants'
workload is equally as arduous after 6.00 p.m. as it is at
8.00 a.m. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to know
what level of work to expect.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In January, 1988 the three straddle carrier drivers agreed
to drive two valmets and one fork lift truck (i.e. 100%
driving hours). In April, 1988 following representations from
the section the Company agreed to give a relief man to cover
the straddle carrier drivers and the shunting area thereby
reducing the driving hours to 70% when the relief man was with
the three straddle carrier drivers. In October, 1988
following further representations from the section, the
Company agreed to give a second relief man thereby placing the
first relief man permanently with the straddle carrier
drivers. This is the fourth man referred to in the claim.
The placement of this relief man meant that the driving hours
would be constant at 70%. It was also agreed that this man
would only be required between 08.00 and 17.00 hours and
therefore would not be required for overtime working.
However, as a gesture, the Company agreed to extend the
working day (Monday to Friday) of the fork lift truck to 18.00
hours thereby allowing the man to earn at least one hour's
overtime per night. It was also agreed that he would work on
overtime on a Saturday if a B. & I. vessel or two vessels were
operating at the terminal.
2. This agreement was made on the very clear understanding
that this section would lodge no further claims. The straddle
carrier drivers (three men plus the relief man) requested the
Company to divide the total overtime worked and share it
amongst the four. The Company agreed to administer this
scheme.
3. After 17.00 hours, Monday to Friday, the level of activity
in the terminal is significantly reduced, given the
traditional flow of trucks to and from customers' premises is
much less. The major activity after 17.00 hours is the vessel
operation.
8. 4. The average daily number of trucks serviced is 170 on a
Monday to Friday basis, whereas on a Saturday the average
decreases to 20. It therefore stands to reason that the work
load on the drivers is considerably reduced and there can be
no justification for the fourth man to be employed on overtime
during these valley periods. Furthermore, because there are
only two valmets working on overtime, if the fourth man was to
be employed the driving hours would reduce to 50% allowing 50%
non driving at a time when the terminal activities have been
considerably reduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the claims directly before it.
On the question of the consolidation of height money there have
been no changes in the conditions of the job which would warrant a
claim for consolidation and in the light of the terms of the
Agreement signed in November last, the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Having regard to the matter of overtime for the 4th man the Court
is of the opinion that the terms the Company has agreed are
equitable and does not therefore recommend concession of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
1st February, 1990
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.