Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90709 Case Number: LCR13174 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for a manning level to be introduced for the transportation of imported cars from ship-side transit areas to a new warehouse site on Promenade Road.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that the present procedure of off loading cars and
driving them to the existing vehicle transit areas with exception
of Stack "R" will continue. The Court further notes that cars for
delivery to Promenade Road will be released for transport in the
manner normally applied to cars being released for transport to
warehouse areas outside the port area. The Court in the
circumstances considers there are no grounds for conceding the
claim of the Union that there should be full involvement of
dockers in the operation.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90709 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13174
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a manning level to be introduced for
the transportation of imported cars from ship-side transit areas
to a new warehouse site on Promenade Road.
BACKGROUND:
2. Traditionally dockers have driven imported cars off ships and
into ship-side transit areas. They have also occasionally driven
cars to Stack R warehouse which is closeby to the main car transit
areas. The importers then arrange for the collection of the cars
by car transporters for delivery to warehouses outside of Dublin
Port. The car transporter drivers/helpers load their own
vehicles. In 1990 the Dublin Port and Docks Board (D.P.D.B.),
which is a major shareholder in the Company, made a commercial
decision in response to demands from private car importers to
provide a new warehousing site for cars within Dublin Port at
Promenade road. The new site is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles away
from the car transit areas. It is proposed that the car
transporters will organise the delivery of the cars from the
transit areas to the new warehousing site where D.P.D.B. staff
will release them to customers. The Union claims that the
movement of cars within the port area is and always has been the
work of dockers and that they should have a manning involvement in
the transportation of cars to the new warehouse site. The Company
rejected the claim and as no agreement could be reached at local
level the matter was referred on 30th November, 1990 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 3rd December, 1990 at which no agreement
was reached and the matter was referred on 9th December, 1990 to a
full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on
17th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Traditionally dockers have been involved in the movement
of cars within the port area. Their right to follow their
work within the port is enshrined in the Company's own
Memorandum and Articles of Association: -
"To load and unload cargoes, to employ dockers and other
personnel, to remove cargoes off quay-sides, to load and
unload trucks belonging to importers and exporters, to use
its own trucks for transportation to warehouses and, if
necessary, to provide total porterage within the perimeters
of the property of the Dublin Port and Docks Board".
The proposed lack of involvement for dockers in the
transportation of cars to the new warehousing site is
contrary to the Company's own Articles of Association.
2. It has been the practice and agreed with the Company
that the laying down and delivery of cargoes within the port
area is the business of deep sea dockers and checkers.
Dockers have traditionally been involved in the delivery of
cars in the port and have driven cars to Stack R for
warehousing. If car transporters are used for the movement
of cars within the port area then the dockers should have
some involvement in that operation.
3. In the light of ongoing rationalisation in the port, the
Company is missing an opportunity to create employment and
safeguard the future of the workforce. The difficulties
cited by the Company that two main roads would have to be
crossed or that there would not be enough petrol in the cars
are not insurmountable. The proposed exclusion of dockers
from the transportation of cars to the new warehouse site is
an erosion of their right to be involved in all dock related
work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally car transporters have been used to deliver
cars from the docks to large warehouse areas. The car
transporters are loaded by the drivers/helpers and the
dockers have no involvement in this operation. This practice
will not change and the Union's claim for some involvement in
the operation is not justified. The only proposed change is
that the cars will be warehoused inside rather outside the
port area.
2. The Company acknowledges that dockers have driven small
numbers of cars to Stack R for warehousing there. However,
Stack R is in close proximity to the car transit area and can
be reached without crossing public roads. It would not be
practical to drive hundreds of cars to the new warehouse
without incurring heavy costs, delays, problems of
supervision and serious potential damage/injury to cars and
drivers and others. Two main public roads would have to be
crossed and it is most likely that there would not be
sufficient petrol in the cars.
3. Car carriers/importers would not allow any involvement
of dockers in their work and in any event there is no work
for them to get involved in. The collection and delivery of
cars from transit areas has always been the work of car
transporters and it is an operation in which the Company can
have no involvement. The cost of insurance for this type of
work would also be prohibitive. It appears that the Union
are seeking a manning level which would amount to "ghost"
labour. The Company could not agree to such an arrangement.
4. For the first time since its establishment the Company
broke even financially last year. This year losses in excess
of #200,000 are expected. Accumulated losses over the years
are in the range of #16 million. The financial backing of
D.P. & D.B. is essential to the Company and the extra revenue
generated by this new warehousing development is therefore
mutually beneficial to both Companies. If the Union's claim
is conceded it will become non-effective as the new
warehousing business will be lost to Dublin Port.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that the present procedure of off loading cars and
driving them to the existing vehicle transit areas with exception
of Stack "R" will continue. The Court further notes that cars for
delivery to Promenade Road will be released for transport in the
manner normally applied to cars being released for transport to
warehouse areas outside the port area. The Court in the
circumstances considers there are no grounds for conceding the
claim of the Union that there should be full involvement of
dockers in the operation.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman