Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90158 Case Number: LCR12832 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a revised comprehensive agreement.
Recommendation:
The recommendation in this case is too long for the Recommendation
Field of the Database. It is held inthe Document Field.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90158 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12832
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a revised comprehensive agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the report of the Dublin Docks Review Group in 1985
(Horgan Report), a Comprehensive Agreement between the Unions and
the Company was signed in 1985. The 1985 Agreement provided a
framework for the orderly conduct of industrial relations,
introduced changes in work practices in order to attain viability
and profitability, and established procedures, rates of pay, and
conditions of employment for dockers employed by the Company. A
review of the 1985 Agreement commenced in 1988 and in early 1989
the parties agreed to recommend a new Agreement for acceptance
(copy supplied to the Court). The Union balloted its members on
these proposals which were rejected in March, 1990. The Union
then decided to ban flexible working from 5th March, 1990 but
following the intervention of the Labour Court normal working was
resumed and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held during the
period 20th to 29th March, 1990 and the Union put forward its
following final position on 26th March, 1990:-
PORT COMMITTEE - MONDAY, 26TH MARCH, 1990
1. A minimum guaranteed flexibility payment of #13.00 per
day for 2 days each week. Displaced men in Flexibility
Read to be paid bonuses and overtime for their rightful
position.
2. Categories of Skill rates and Driving differentials to be
paid on a weekly basis. Drivers on the "Rack" to be paid
on a weekly basis.
3. No broken time on hourly rate.
4. Stand-by Payment of #1.10 per hour.
5. The present Service Pay to be consolidated into basic
weekly rate.
6. The introduction of a Company family doctor (as per
Dublin Port and Docks Board).
7. Car driving money to be paid on holidays.
8. 39 hour week as from 1st January, 1990.
9. Canteen Vouchers and Company Tokens may be exchangeable.
10. Weekend transport (including Sundays and Bank Holidays).
11. Duration of Agreement to cover 3 year period. Wages,
differentials and incentives to be reviewed annually.
"Termination of Agreement" to be clarified as agreed.
12. Acceptance that the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement
will not interfere with the right of the Unions to
conduct a trade dispute.
13. Retrospection.
THE COMPANY HAS ALREADY RECOGNISED THE MERITS OF THE FOLLOWING
CLAIMS AND HAS MADE PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD BE FOUND ACCEPTABLE
(a) All bulk related jobs - #2.00 per hour.
(b) Overtime.
(c) Transfer fee of #6.00 for all transfers.
(d) Re-introduction of Penalty Hour, under old Rules.
(e) Tokens.
(f) Heavy and Delivery Drivers to be paid #15.00 bonus.
(g) Car driving money to be paid on holidays.
(h) Canteen Vouchers.
The Company rejected the Union's final position and, as no
agreement was possible, the matter was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court which was held on the 5th and 6th of April,
1990. A recommendation was issued to the parties by letter on the
7th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1985 Agreement was understood to run for a minimum
period of three years and was negotiated in a period of
general recession. The fortunes of the Company have improved
since 1985 but the dockers rates and conditions have not
progressed equally with the Company's good fortune. When the
Union sought to re-negotiate the 1985 Agreement before its
termination in 1988 it met with resistance from the Company.
This delay and resistance by the Company has increased the
anger and frustration of the dockers and has done considerable
damage to industrial relations in Dublin Port.
2. The record increasing trade position in Dublin Port
compared with the ever decreasing workforce demonstrates a
massive increase in productivity resulting in cost savings for
the Company. The dockers should be compensated for the
increased productivity and the Company's proposals are not
acceptable to the workforce.
3. The Union's claim and the reasons for same are as
follows:-
1. Flexibility Payments
Since 1985 the workforce in the deep sea docks section
has reduced from 268 to 146. This has been done by a
mixture of voluntary redundancies and natural wastage.
Over this period the total cargo tonnage through the
port has increased significantly. The increased trade
and reduced workforce has put increasing demands on
the area of flexibility. The high degree of
flexibility presently in operation could never have
been foreseen in 1985. The guarantee of the two days
flexibility payment would be of absolutely no hardship
to the Company and should be conceded. In regard to
the flexibility "read," when the "read" is in
operation dockers should be paid for their rightful
position as if there was a normal "read", or whichever
is the greater.
2. SKill Rates
The Company's position on rates for driving and
operation of machinery is acceptable to the Union.
However these skills are at the disposal of the
Company at all times and should be paid for on a
weekly basis.
3. Broken Time
Dockers who are "read" for short term work should be
paid bonus on a daily basis rather than on an hourly
basis.
4. Stand-by Payments
The present system is that fifteen men are "read" for
stand-by purposes. These men are paid at a rate far
below those dockers who are actually working although
they are available to be used for whatever work may
present itself. For this reason a special stand-by
rate of #1.10 per hour which is equal to the lowest
bonus rate in the port should be paid.
5. Service Pay
The present maximum payment for service pay is #4 per
week for twenty years' service. Service pay was
introduced in 1979 and was only increased on one
occasion since then (in 1986). The service payments
should be consolidated into the basic weekly wage so
as to ensure that service pay will keep pace with
normal wage increases.
6. Company Family Doctor
The Company was set up under the auspices of the
Dublin Port and Docks Board and the health and welfare
conditions employed by the Board should be extended to
the dockers employed by the Company. The welfare
scheme operated by the Board includes the provision of
the services of a medical officer for staff.
7. Car Driving Money
The Company's offer relating to this claim would be
recommended for acceptance.
8. 39 Hour Week
This particular claim was served on the Company during
1989 prior to the commencement of talks on the new
Agreement. The Union anticipated that the 39 hour
week would be introduced as and from 1st January,
1990.
9. Vouchers and Tokens
This claim can be adequately dealt with at local
level.
10. Weekend Transport
As public transport times are not suitable on Sundays
and Bank Holidays the Company should make adequate
arrangements so that dockers can get to work on time.
11. Duration of Agreement
The proposed duration of 4 years for the new agreement
is not acceptable. The Union is not prepared to tie
itself to a 4 year agreement without the right to
negotiate on the monetary terms of the new agreement,
such as bonus and flexibility payments. The date for
termination of the new agreement should be clarified
so as to avoid future disputes on this matter.
12. Trade Disputes
The understanding of the Union under the 1985
agreement is that the restrictive terms of the
disputes procedure in the agreement was not intended
to interfere with the normal rights of the Union in
their conduct of trade disputes but was intended to
deal solely with ship-side disputes. In 1989 the
Company took action in regard a third party dispute
which the Union considers to be in breach of that
understanding. It is important that agreement is
reached on this matter if progress is to be made on a
new agreement.
13. Retrospection
Because of the extra productivity achieved since 1985
and up to and including the present, retrospection
should be from the date of termination of the 1985
Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1985 the Horgan Report acknowledged the need for cost
efficiency and effectiveness and recognised that flexible
working is an essential feature if the port is to operate
efficiently and competitively. The 1985 Agreement was a
direct response to the difficulties identified in the Horgan
Report and was a rescue package for the Company and the
dockers. In order to survive and become more competitive in
the future current practices which are out of date and costly
must be discontinued. The new 1989 Agreement provides gains
for the Company in the area of flexibility which are necessary
for the future viability of Dublin Port. The Company's offer
in relation to the implementation of the new Agreement is fair
and reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The 1985 Agreement greatly improved pay and working
conditions for dockers and enabled the Company to regain
business it had lost to other ports. Cargo volumes have
increased since 1985 but this increase has not provided full
employment for the current number of dockers. The enormous
cost of over mannings has serious financial implications for
the Company and impedes competitiveness.
3. The Union claims that the dockers have not benefited from
the increase in cargo traffic through Dublin Port. The fact
is that the Company has still not achieved viability as
present costs are too high to achieve this. It should also be
noted that dockers earnings are in part directly related to
traffic throughput and dockers have benefited from the gradual
increase in business.
4. Although a level of flexibility has been reached the
Company does not have the level of flexibility necessary for
the successful running of the business. The Company does not
see merit in the list of claims presented by the Union
conditional on the implementation of a new agreement. The
Company's response to each of the claims is as follows:-
1. Flexibility Payments
The Company has already paid in the 1985 Agreement
for full flexibility but has yet to achieve it. To
overcome the restrictive practices and problems
associated with the current operation of flexibility
the Company agreed to a new system with the Union.
The Company's final offer of #12 per day, only when
this new system is used, was made on the basis that
both sides would recommend the final package to
their respective constituents. The concept of such
payment was justifiable on the basis that the
Company would achieve a greater degree of freedom in
the operation of flexibility and hence a more
effective and efficient level of operation. The
Union claim regarding the flexibility "read" is not
acceptable to the Company and would not be
practical.
2. Skill Rates
The skill rates are acceptable to the Company but
should only apply when the particular skills are put
into operation. The skill rates should be treated
like a bonus payment and be paid only when
particular work is carried out. Weekly payments
would add to already increasing costs and the claim
is prohibited under the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.).
3. Broken Time
This claim means in effect that if a docker works on
a small job, and is not allocated to another job, he
should receive a bonus for 8 hours work. This claim
is unreasonable and would add to the Company's
costs. It would be a disincentive for dockers who
have to work the full hours to achieve the same
bonus and could have a repercussive effect.
4. Stand-by Payments
The Company does not accept that there is any
justification to pay a bonus to dockers while they
are on stand-by. Bonus payments are paid when men
do work and a stand-by payment would act as a
disincentive to work. The amount of bonus claimed
is equivalent to the rate of container work and
could lead to repercussive claims.
5. Service Pay
The consolidation of service pay in the basic weekly
wage would increase Company costs in relation to its
pension scheme and cannot be afforded.
6. Company Family Doctor
The Company could not fund a family doctor from its
own resources and is not aware of any compelling
reasons for such a scheme. The Dublin Port and Dock
Board scheme is exclusive to their employees and
cannot be extended to the dockers employed by the
Company.
7. Car Driving Money
The Union has indicated that the Company's offer is
acceptable.
8. 39 Hour Week
The Company has accepted the principle of the
introduction of a 39 hour week but at no stage was
it ever suggested that an implementation date of 1st
January, 1990 was being claimed by the Union. The
Company has not had adequate opportunity to develop
its position on the matter but there can be no
question of any retrospective element in its
introduction.
9. Vouchers and Tokens
This matter could be discussed at local level.
10. Weekend Transport
The Company is prepared to discuss this matter at
local level.
11. Duration of Agreements
The Company believes that a minimum period of 4
years for the new Agreement is necessary in order to
regain the confidence of customers and plan properly
for the future. The Company is not prepared to
negotiate monetary terms on an annual basis as such
matters are bound by the P.N.R. and the 1985
Agreement which is still in force until a new
Agreement takes its place. It is only commonsense
that the 1985 Agreement should continue until a new
Agreement is put in its place.
12. Trade Disputes
The Company acknowledges the Unions right to conduct
a trade dispute. The Company is not seeking to
debar the Union from the right to conduct and
industrial dispute but seeks to ensure that dispute
procedures are followed.
13. Retrospection
The Company does not accept that the 1985 Agreement
terminated in 1988. Any changes in work practices
that arise from a new Agreement should only be paid
for when the new Agreement is put into operation.
As a gesture of goodwill the Company offered a
lead-in payment of #100 to each man. The Company
sees no justification for increasing its offer and
will not agree to any retrospective payment.
*RECOMMENDATION:
(a) It is evident there is an urgent need to ensure that the full
potential of Dublin Port is achieved to serve Irish Industry. It
is imperative that if new customers are to be attracted and
present customers retained they need to have confidence that the
port is being operated in a stable and efficient manner. To
enable this confidence to be maintained and assured it is
necessary to have a continuation of the Industrial peace that has
existed since 1985. This can only be achieved by management and
workers co-operating fully in the working of the port.
(b) Since 1985 there have been significant changes in the port
and the Court concurs with the views expressed by the parties that
this situation needs to be critically assessed. Accordingly the
Court recommends:-
(1) That the developments in the port since 1985 should be the
subject of an examination by an agreed independent third
party (preferably with knowledge and experience of the
organisation and operation of docks) with a view to comparing
the operation of Dublin Port with other comparable deep sea
ports, assessing the impact of the changes in and the
requirements of the port since 1985 and making
recommendations as to the organisation (including
infrastructure, staffing, manning etc.) necessary for its
efficient operation.
The Court further recommends that the report of the
independent third party should be completed on or before 30th
June, 1991.
(c) In the interim the Court recognises it is necessary to
operate the port as efficiently as possible and in a climate of
industrial peace if customer use of and confidence in the port is
to be maintained and assured. To this end as the basis for
acceptance of the Comprehensive Agreement in full and a resolution
of issues disputed between the parties the Court makes the
following recommendations:-
1. Flexibility.
The Court recommends that a flexibility payment be made based
on 100 flexible days per 12 month period at a rate of #12 per
day (i.e. #12 x 100 days = #1,200 p.a.). This amount to be
paid on a weekly basis (#23.08 per week). At the end of each
12 month period any flexible days in excess of the above
number of days to be paid for as a lump sum.
The transfer fee to be paid as proposed by the Company.
The Court does not concede the claim in respect of displaced
men.
2. Skill Rates.
The Court recommends that payments in respect of skill and
driving as proposed by the Company be paid on a daily basis
to a ceiling of 2 days when the skills are utilised. In the
event of skills being utilised in excess of 2 days the
appropriate differential to be paid on a weekly basis.
3. Broken Time.
The Court recommends that the minimum payment to be made for
broken time be four hours.
4. Stand-by Payment.
The Court recommends that 50% of the container bonus be paid
for each hour while on stand-by.
5. Service Pay.
The Court recommends that service pay be increased to #6 for
20 years service.
The Court also recommends that a suitable reference to
service pay be included in the provisions of the
Comprehensive Agreement.
6. 39 Hour Week.
The Court recommends the Company and the Union have
discussions on the introduction of the 39 hour working week
with a view to its implementation on or before 1st January,
1991.
8. Duration of Agreements.
The Court recommends that the agreement remain in force for a
period of 3 years from the date of signing, with the
exception of Clause 26 Wage Rates and Payments which should
be the subject of negotiations following the expiry of the
current Programme for National Recovery.
9. Trade Disputes.
The Court notes that procedures exist within the agreement to
deal with trade disputes between the port workers and D.C.H.
In respect of third party disputes, the Court notes that
within the Trade Union Movement procedures are available to
members of unions seeking support of colleague workers
(I.C.T.U. All Out Picketing Policy).
10. Retrospection.
The Court recommends that each man be paid a sum of #250 on
the commencement date of the agreement and a further #200 six
months thereafter.
The Court makes the above recommendations in an endeavour to seek
a basis under which the port can be operated efficiently and in a
climate of industrial peace.
Accordingly the Court further recommends:-
(i) That the Comprehensive Agreement together with such
amendments as arise as a consequence of the Court's
recommendations above be accepted by both parties and be
operated in accordance with the spirit and intent of the
agreement, and in accordance with it's provisions.
(ii) That the parties ensure they have common understandings of
the provisions of the Comprehensive Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation in this case is too long for the Recommendation
Field of the Database. It is held inthe Document Field.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___________________
30th July, 1990.
A.S./J.C. Deputy Chairman