Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90168 Case Number: LCR12806 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SEALINK U.K. LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of dockers and R.O.D. staff for extra payment for a two-ship operation.
Recommendation:
5. The Union has claimed that the principle of payment for
working a second ship on the same day has always existed and
quoted instances in support of its case. The Court, having given
careful consideration to the evidence produced, does not find that
such a principle has been established where the working of the
second ship on the same day does not result in the discharge and
loading of both ships.
However, while in no way condoning the circumstances in which the
Company made the payment on a previous occasion, the Court is of
the view that an expectation of payment had been created in the
minds of the 19 persons concerned. Noting that this did not
result in any disruption during the 3 weeks the unusual working
arrangement was required by the Company, the Court recommends a
payment of #100 to each of the 19 persons involved in the claim
and further recommends that talks between the parties should
commence immediately as to the procedures to be adopted should
complete second ship loading and unloading on a single day be
required in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90168 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12806
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SEALINK U.K. LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of dockers and R.O.D. staff for extra payment
for a two-ship operation.
BACKGROUND:
2. From the early 1970's until the end of 1989, Sealink operated
a lift-on, lift-off container service from Holyhead into the
Dublin Container Terminal. The service operated from Monday to
Friday, arriving on Monday at 08.00 hrs. and departing at 17.00
hrs. and on Tuesday to Friday arriving 11.00 hrs. departing at
17.00 hrs. While it operated two vessels on the route, only one
ship per day arrived at the Dublin Container Terminal. From the
2nd February to the 24th February the sailings were re-scheduled
to clear a backlog of units requiring shipment. The new
arrangement involved the first vessel arriving in Dublin at 2.00
p.m. each day and being discharged in the afternoon/evening. This
vessel was then left overnight and loaded the next morning for
departure. The second vessel then arrived in at 2.00 p.m. for
discharge, and so on. The result being that each day one ship was
loaded in the morning and the second one was discharged in the
afternoon/evening, instead of the one ship being discharged and
loaded. The Union subsequently lodged a claim for #20 per man per
day for working the second vessel. The Union claimed that similar
arrangements have existed in regard to working two ships in the
cross-channel shipping section and that the Company had made
payments in similar situations in the past. The Company rejected
the claim at local level and on the 16th February the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference on the 19th
February and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
1st March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A 'double ship' payment has always been paid in Dublin
Port. The Company's main competitor pays a 'double ship'
payment to dockers which is 80% of the LO/LO daily rate -
currently the payment is #33.60. This payment is made for the
full working of two ships in the one day but would be paid in
circumstances of partial working of a second vessel, except
where this involved an emergency situation. The competitor's
dockers are involved in crane driving, shunting, etc., which
is done by R.O.D. staff in Sealink.
2. In the past payment has been made where two ships were
worked; In November, 1988 there was a requirement for
Saturday working of two ships and the dockers claimed and
received #20 per man. In a similar situation in early 1989
R.O.D. staff and dockers received #20 for working the second
vessel.
3. The Company's argument that this is only a temporary
measure is all the more justification for payment. Similar to
the situation in the cross channel section any long-term
regular service would obviously have to be the subject of
discussion with a view to a separate agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff at the Dublin Container Terminal are paid for hours
worked only, and this did not change as a result of the
alteration in the sailing pattern.
2. Two vessels were worked for a half day at the port during
the period in question, whereas one vessel would have been
worked for a full day up to the end of 1989.
3. Concession of the claim would increase costs at the
Terminal, and as such would be a contravention of the
Programme for National Recovery.
4. Ships' rosters are subject to change from time to time and
there are no reasonable grounds which would justify concession
of the claim. If conceded it will have a repercussive effect
on other sections of the staff at the Terminal, who have
already lodged claims with the Company on foot of the one
before the Court.