Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9017 Case Number: LCR12741 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DROGHEDA HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a Harbour Constable concerning his transfer to night security duties.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that the requirement of the Harbour Board for two
constables during the day no longer exists. In the circumstances,
the Court is of the opinion that the proposals originating with
the Industrial Relations Officer, confirmed in the Board's letter
of 29th November, 1989, and as refined by later correspondence
should be accepted by the worker concerned. The Court so
recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9017 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12741
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DROGHEDA HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a Harbour Constable concerning
his transfer to night security duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Commissioners employ 2 constables to carry out security
duties and traffic control on the quays. The worker here
concerned is the junior of the two. On 13th December, 1988, the
Commissioners decided that as there was only sufficient work for
one constable, one of the two would have to be made redundant.
The following proposal was put forward by the Commissioners:-
- that the senior constable would continue on day duties,
- the other constable position be made redundant and
re-employed under new night security, and
- the day constable would continue as fire safety warden at
Flogas. A general operative or part-time worker to be
trained as the second fire safety warden.
These proposals were rejected by the Union on the grounds that
such a change would result in a reduction in the worker's pay and
in the belief that it was necessary to have two constables on duty
in the port.
A notice of proposed redundancy was issued to the worker on 30th
March, 1989, however, this was suspended pending negotiations
between the parties. Further discussions failed to resolve the
dispute and on 15th June, 1989, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference held on 25th July, 1989, the following proposals
emerged:-
- that the worker concerned transfer to permanent night
duties while retaining his present level of pay,
- he will have first refusal in the event of the remaining
constable being replaced,
- he will continue to wear his uniform denoting status
whilst engaged in night security duties, and
- the Commissioners acknowledge that suitable cover will
continue to be required for the port operations covered
by the Dangerous Substances Act.
These proposals were rejected by the Union and on 11th January,
1990, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejected the proposals emanating from the
conciliation conference on the grounds that the worker is
fully occupied in his present duties and because port traffic
increases fully justify his retention as constable. The
reasons given by the Commissioners for his removal from day
duties are not justified.
2. Over the last decade port traffic has increased one
hundred per cent, resulting in a busier schedule for the two
constables whose duties include ensuring safety regulations
are complied with, monitoring all cargoes loaded and unloaded
and security duties (details provided to the Court).
3. When a constable is on duty at the Flo Gas/Ola Jetty or
Mornington Jetty, he can often be absent from the main docks
for up to 14 hours. If the number of constables was reduced
this would result in the main port not having any constable on
duty during busy periods. The Union strongly opposes any
reduction in manning under these circumstances. Added to
this, the reduction will mean that during holiday periods,
sick leave, etc.... there will be no constable on duty. A
reduction in the number of constables would be a retrograde
step for the port.
4. The worker concerned has been a harbour constable for 10
years. A change to night duty would be traumatic for the
worker and his family. The Union seeks that he be retained in
his present position.
COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was chosen for redundancy in
accordance with the "LIFO" principle. Under the terms of his
redundancy he would receive approximately #11,000
compensation, provided he does not take any other employment
with the Commissioners.
2. Under the proposals put forward at the conciliation
conference the worker had the choice of being made redundant
or accept the new position whilst retaining his uniform and
rate of pay. He has rejected these proposals and the
Commissioners now have no choice but to make him redundant.
3. Under the Commissioners' proposals 3 night security
officers are required. However, these cannot be recruited
until the present impasse is resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that the requirement of the Harbour Board for two
constables during the day no longer exists. In the circumstances,
the Court is of the opinion that the proposals originating with
the Industrial Relations Officer, confirmed in the Board's letter
of 29th November, 1989, and as refined by later correspondence
should be accepted by the worker concerned. The Court so
recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
6th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.