Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90542 Case Number: LCR13166 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B & I LINE PLC. - and - SEAMENS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of seamen, catering and ancillary staff for an increase in rates of pay.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having considered information provided by the Company which at the
request of the Court was verified by the Company's auditors, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the Union's claim based as
it is, upon relativities with other grades within the Company,
cannot be sustained. The Court, therefore, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90542 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13166
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B & I LINE PLC.
and
SEAMENS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of seamen, catering and
ancillary staff for an increase in rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates three different types of ships on its
car freight and passenger services on nine routes out of Ireland,
UK and the continent. The Company crews five ships.
3. Escalating losses over many years due to a variety of reasons
culminated, in 1987, by the Government calling for an
extraordinary effort from all concerned to make the Company viable
and requested a plan that would have across the board support of
the work force.
4. The formulation of the Survival Plan involved an
unprecedented exercise in management/staff co-operation. The Plan
was submitted to Government and funding agreed subject to annual
review based on detailed monitoring and progress reports. The
Plan provided for many fundamental changes. Included in the
changes were 565 redundancies, 5% pay reduction and a 3 year pay
freeze as well as major changes in the services provided (details
supplied to the Court).
5. The 5% pay reduction was restored after 1 year and the 25th
pay round was paid as part of the Company/Union Group Pay
Agreement which was implemented on the 1st July, 1989.
6. In November 1989 local claims were lodged on behalf of the
workers here concerned. These were rejected by the Company on the
basis of the "no cost increasing claims" clause in the pay
agreement. There followed a series of work disruptions as a
result of a policy of non co-operation. Following meetings at
local level and a number of conciliation conferences the Union put
aside all sectional claims and stated its main concern was the low
pay status of its members relative to shore staff. The issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court in March
1990. Following a number of conciliation conferences at which no
agreement was reached the parties subsequently consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 1 October, 1990. This hearing was
adjourned so that the parties could submit additional evidence to
the Court. The hearing resumed on 2 November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In 1970 an Agreement was reached which provided for
ratings to work a 12 hour day, 7 day week. A consolidated
weekly rate of pay was paid which included compensation for
an average rate after extras i.e. overtime and bank holidays
were taken into consideration. The Agreement also provided
for time off i.e. the workers work one week-on, one week-off.
The overtime rate which was agreed to at that time has never
been reviewed and in monetary terms is considerably lower to
date.
2. The workers here concerned are confined to the vessels
for the week they are working and are, in effect, on standby
for the time they are off as they are required to deal with
any emergencies which may arise, such as fire, unruly
passengers and problems with bad weather. These workers also
have little or no recreational facilities.
3. The Company has undergone a number of re-organisations
over the past decade which have resulted in a number of
redundancies, cuts in wages and loss of holidays. While
these cuts effected all workers the seaman's section were
worse affected because of reduced manning levels their
workload was increased by 20%. Because of the consolidated
wage agreement it is impossible for the workers here
concerned to recoup their losses whereas the shore workers
are paid basic plus overtime have been able to maintain their
earnings and thus widen the gap between them and the seamen
(who are for the most part skilled workers).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has experienced extreme financial and
trading difficulties over the years which has resulted in
major rationalisation plans being implemented in order for
the Company to stave off closure. These plans have resulted
in cuts which have affected all sections of the work force
(details supplied to the Court).
2. There is not, nor was there ever, any relationship
between seamen and shore people. Seamens' traditional
comparison has been with rates in other shipping companies.
The rates between seamen in B & I and seamen in other
shipping companies compare favourably.
3. The pay trends in basic pay over the years do not
disadvantage the seagoing staff, nor do the trends in average
annual earnings. (Details which, with consent of the Union,
were supplied to the Court on a confidential basis).
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having considered information provided by the Company which at the
request of the Court was verified by the Company's auditors, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the Union's claim based as
it is, upon relativities with other grades within the Company,
cannot be sustained. The Court, therefore, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st January, 1991 John O'Connell
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman