Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91425 Case Number: LCR13515 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PURCELL EXPORTS LTD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute on behalf of 11 drovers concerning (a) retention of gang strength, (b) daily rate (c) pension rate (d) death in service benefit (e) fall back pay (f) holiday schedule (g) bonus days (h) clothing allowance (i) loading scale (j) new agreement
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recognises that as a result of the fall-off in the cattle
trade, neither party has benefitted from the 1988-89 agreement in
the way envisaged when the agreement was established. The costs
per shipment are now higher than anticipated by the Company and
the overall earnings are less than expected by the workers.
In these circumstances and having particular regard to the present
level of business the Court does not see as sustainable, the
Unions claims which would have significant impact on the cost per
shipment. At the same time the Company proposals to eliminate
top-up/fallback holidays would seriously diminish the workers
earnings.
Having regard to all the factors, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claims or implementation of the Company
proposals on top-up/fall back holidays. The Court recommends
continuation of present conditions and the application of the
P.E.S.P. with effect from the end of the P.N.R. agreement. As
this recommendation is based on the present level of trade, the
agreement should run to the end of 1992.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91425 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13515
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(4) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PURCELL EXPORTS LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute on behalf of 11 drovers concerning
(a) retention of gang strength,
(b) daily rate
(c) pension rate
(d) death in service benefit
(e) fall back pay
(f) holiday schedule
(g) bonus days
(h) clothing allowance
(i) loading scale
(j) new agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company are livestock exporters operating out of
Waterford Port. It shipped cattle to Libya. It now ships cattle
to Yemen on a commission basis. The Company employs 11 drovers on
a casual basis to load cattle onto ships.
2. The Company and drovers were previously before the Court in
1989 and LCR12430 was issued as set out below on 7th June, 1989.
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the claimants should be paid a lump
sum of £100 in respect of the period 1st April, 1987 to 31st
March, 1988 and that the P.N.R. should take effect as from
1st April, 1988. The Court also recommends that the Public
Holidays Entitlement should be as follows:-
1 day for every 4 boats - 1989
1 day for every 3 boats - 1990 up to a maximum
of 8 days.
The Court recommends in relation to holidays that the 5
days Fall Back/Top Up holiday be phased in as follows:-
1989 - 1 day
1990 - 2 days
1991 - 2 days
giving a total of 5 days in that year. The Court also
recommends that the Death-in-Service arrangements
proposed by the Company should come into effect when
agreement is reached on this package. The Court does not
recommend concession of the other claims."
3. The agreement reached as a result (details supplied) was in
operation until 31st March, 1991. On 30th May, 1990, the Unions
submitted a claim on behalf of the drovers for an improvement in
basic pay and loading scale, parity with the regular dockers on
pension, a clothing allowance and death in service benefit of
£5,000. The Company would not discuss the Union's claim and on
3rd October, 1990 entered into discussions with the Union to
reduce the number of drovers from 11 to 7 for the reasons as set
out below:-
(a) The very difficult trading period due to the BSE
disease which had virtually stopped export of cattle to
Libya
(b) The continuing uncertainty as to when or indeed if
trade to Libya from Ireland would be re-activated
(c) The inability of the Company to attract business due to
the high cost of manning levels, especially in the case
of boats under 1000 cattle.
4. The Company position was rejected by the Union and the dispute
was referred to the Conciliation Service. Conciliation
conferences were held on 5th December, 1990, 27th March, 1991 and
17th May, 1991. The Union's claim remained as set out above. The
Company maintained its position that its financial difficulties
prevented it from meeting the Union's claims. The Company's final
offer on redundancies was £600 per man and the daily rate was to
be increased from £55.72 to £60 for the remaining drovers. An
approach was made by the Company to Waterford Harbour
Commissioners to see if financial assistance might be available to
finance a redundancy package. This approach was rejected by the
Commissioners. The Company also made an offer on loading scales
and gang sizes (details supplied) and sought the elimination of
top up, fall back and holiday payments. No agreement was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation on 13th August, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 26th November, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The drovers have been employed by the Company since 1973
but have worked most of their working lives in Waterford docks
as dockers/drovers (details supplied). The Court in 1989 put
in place the basis for agreement with the Company that gave
the drovers some of the badges of permanency by recognising a
parity and linkage with the regular dock workforce. The
drovers are seeking that the agreement be kept in place with a
daily rate of £90, the fall back at 5 x £70 and the bonus days
at 1 per 3 boats. The £90 daily rate will regain parity with
the regular dock section. It will allow elimination of the
loading scale and hatch money.
2. The Company are seeking 5 redundancies from the drovers.
The Union is prepared to consider a voluntary redundancy
situation if the Company offer £3,000 per drover. This payment
to be coupled with a lead in payment of £1,000 per drover to a
new agreement for the remaining 6 drovers. The £3,000 per
drover would apply across the board regardless of service.
The drovers are at present performing the same duties as
regular dockers for less pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since negotiations began, business has deteriorated. The
Company has no contract with Libya due to B.S.E. The last
ship which went to Libya was on 21st May, 1990. The Company is
supplying cattle to be shipped to Yemen on a commission basis
at present . In the year to 30th June, 1991, there were only
12 shipments of cattle. For the 12 days work, the Company had
to pay 9 days holidays - 5 top-up days and 4 public holidays.
2. The Company cannot be bound by a 3-year agreement as
emerged from LCR12430. It has up to now operated the
agreement which expired in March, 1991. The realities of the
trading situation must now be recognised. It does not appear
likely that the Libyan business will re-open in the
foreseeable future. There has been no shipment since 7th
October, 1991 and there is complete uncertainty with regard to
any future shipments of cattle.
3. The Company's final offer is as set out below:-
(a) It would be prepared to leave the gang strength at
11 but the top-up/fall back holidays will have to
be eliminated.
(b) Holiday schedule related to hours worked as
follows:-
150 - 249 hours 3 days
250 - 349 hours 4 days
350 - 449 hours 5 days
450 - 549 hours 6 days
550 - 579 hours 7 days
(c) Death in service to remain at £3,000.
(d) A protective clothing allowance of £65 which in
view of the activity level, the company considers
adequate.
(e) £60 daily rate and bonus as outlined:-
£5.00 for cattle 1000 - 1300
£10.00 for cattle 1301 - 1500
£15.00 for cattle 1501 - 2000
(f) The Company would wish the agreement to run for
only one year due to the uncertainty of the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recognises that as a result of the fall-off in the cattle
trade, neither party has benefitted from the 1988-89 agreement in
the way envisaged when the agreement was established. The costs
per shipment are now higher than anticipated by the Company and
the overall earnings are less than expected by the workers.
In these circumstances and having particular regard to the present
level of business the Court does not see as sustainable, the
Unions claims which would have significant impact on the cost per
shipment. At the same time the Company proposals to eliminate
top-up/fallback holidays would seriously diminish the workers
earnings.
Having regard to all the factors, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claims or implementation of the Company
proposals on top-up/fall back holidays. The Court recommends
continuation of present conditions and the application of the
P.E.S.P. with effect from the end of the P.N.R. agreement. As
this recommendation is based on the present level of trade, the
agreement should run to the end of 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th December, 1991 -----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman