Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90710 Case Number: LCR13136 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the manning of a new warehouse at Promenade Road.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has taken account of the oral and written
submissions of the parties. The Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union claim and accordingly rejects it.
In rejecting the claim the Court wishes to put on record the
specific guarantees made by the Company regarding the consequences
of the changes and the implications for employees.
In this context the Court notes that as a consequence of the
introduction of these proposals the work content of the checkers
will not change and no loss of jobs will arise. Further the Court
notes in the event the Company wish to introduce other changes as
a result of these proposals these will be discussed and agreed
with the workers and their representatives.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90710 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13136
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manning of a new warehouse at Promenade
Road.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute relates to 30 checkers employed by Dublin
Cargo Handling Limited who are seeking to work in a new
warehousing compound on Promenade Road. The compound is owned
by the Dublin Port and Docks Board and it is proposed that it
be manned by members of their staff who are affiliated to
S.I.P.T.U.. The Dublin Port and Docks Board are major share
holders in Dublin Cargo Handling.
2. Up to recently imported cars have been kept in an open
compound at the North Wall. They are checked out to the
customers by checkers. With the opening of the new
warehousing compound at Promenade Road (1.25 miles away), the
Company are seeking to end the checkers' involvement, as
before, with the checking of cars out at the North Wall. The
customer will collect the cars by car carriers and bring them
to the new warehouse where they will be checked in and out by
D.P. & D.B. warehouse staff.
3. The warehouse has been set up within the Port area. The
Company maintain that this is a commercial decision by the
D.P. & D.B. in response to a demand by importers. Warehousing
they claim is not a function of a stevedoring Company and the
functions of the checkers will remain the same as when cars go
to other locations around the city. The Union are committed
to following what they believe is rightly their work within
the Port Area. In the long term as more imports are moved
from the quayside transit area in this way, they see the work
of their members being seriously eroded.
4. The issue came to a head when on 14th November, 1990 a
checker refused to release cars for delivery to the new site
on the Promenade Road. The cars were subsequently released
for delivering to a site on the Longmile Road. Meetings
between the parties were held to resolve the dispute but no
progress was made. The Company under the terms of the
Comprehensive Agreement to which the Union is a party
suspended a checker on 28th November, 1990 when he refused to
release cars to the Promenade Road site. Two other checkers
who stated that they would refuse to release cars for delivery
to the site were also suspended.
5. Contact with the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court
led to the two latter checkers being re-instated without
penalty and the first being re-instated with the loss of one
day's pay. A conciliation conference was held on 3rd
December, 1990. No agreement was reached at conciliation and
the Company sought an urgent Labour Court hearing to which the
Union agreed. A Labour Court investigation took place on 11th
December, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union have not at any stage pursued the dispute
through agreed procedures and they are in breach of a
Comprehensive Agreement. Their action has resulted in the
suspension of 3 checkers.
2. The Company have no input into the warehousing
arrangements made by the D.P. & D.B. (which is a separate
Company) who have traditionally been involved in providing
warehousing for the longer term storage of cargoes imported
through Dublin Port. This warehousing has always been staffed
by D.P. & D.B. personnel and in fact cars have occasionally
been warehoused in Stack R which is within the port area and
is staffed by D.P. & D.B.
3. Warehousing of cars in the Promenade Road site will be
treated in the same way as the warehousing of cars in other
areas outside the Port. There will be no change in the duties
of checkers and no job losses will result. If anything the
freeing up of transit space within the 10-day free quay period
in addition to the new warehousing may make the Port a more
attractive proposition to car importers and improve service to
customers all round.
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 #15 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.
5. Warehousing of all types of cargo has been carried out by
D.P. & D.B. for over 120 years with their own staff. The
majority of these workers are represented by S.I.P.T.U. Even
if the Company were in a position to expand from stevedoring
to warehousing, any question of Company employees becoming
involved in the Promenade Road site would inevitably lead to a
serious inter-Union dispute. In this context it is important
to re-iterate that the laying down and delivering of cargo's
(i.e. stevedoring) ends as before at the quay. On a more
practical level there would be insurance difficulties in the
Companys staff becoming involved in the movement of cars
because of the fact that two public roads would have to be
crossed. In addition, because of security and safety
considerations, there is little fuel in the cars and therefore
problems arise with transportation over distances.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union believe that their members have the right to
follow their work within Dublin Port. This right 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."
It has been the practice and agreed with the Company that the
laying down and delivery of cargo's within the port area is a
matter for the workers involved.
2. The workers do not find the Company's arguments acceptable
and feel that it is missing an opportunity to provide more
work for checkers and much needed revenue for the Company.
The difficulties that 2 main roads would have to be crossed or
that there would not be enough petrol in the cars are not
insurmountable. It is felt in the light of ongoing
rationalisation that the Company are attempting to reduce the
workforce. For instance if in addition to imported cars other
cargos were also taken directly from ship to warehouse, the
checkers supervisory and security duties would be reduced.
This would result in a consequential reduction in the
workforce. It is important to note that no extra manning has
been requested in order to take on the extra responsibilities.
3. The Union has made great efforts to resolve this issue and
have met the Chief Executive of D.P. and D.B. as early as 21st
June this year. Despite the fact that the Company was aware
that the site was a disputed area for some time, they
instructed a checker to operate the new compound. There was
no agreement in place and 3 suspensions ensued. This would
seem to prove that there is a concerted effort being made
within the Port to restrict and repress the development
and involvement of the Deep Sea Workers' Sections in any
future plans for the Port of Dublin.
4. The workers feel strongly that their responsibility for
cargo does not finish until it leaves the Port Area. This is
clear from the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the
Company. As this type of operation expands to other cargos
checkers are eliminated. In addition the Company lose
valuable revenue as a result of the movement of cargo during
the 10 day free quay period.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has taken account of the oral and written
submissions of the parties. The Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union claim and accordingly rejects it.
In rejecting the claim the Court wishes to put on record the
specific guarantees made by the Company regarding the consequences
of the changes and the implications for employees.
In this context the Court notes that as a consequence of the
introduction of these proposals the work content of the checkers
will not change and no loss of jobs will arise. Further the Court
notes in the event the Company wish to introduce other changes as
a result of these proposals these will be discussed and agreed
with the workers and their representatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_________________________
Tom McGrath
21st December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.