Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91219 Case Number: LCR13270 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for an involvement for clerical workers in a proposed roll on/roll off service to be introduced on 1st May, 1991.
Recommendation:
3. It is clear to the Court that a great deal of confusion has
arisen through a lack of adequate dialogue between the parties to
this dispute.
The management on the one hand are adamant that the introduction
of the roll on/roll off service of Dublin Ferries is a unique
service, (quite different from the agency services normally
carried out by DCH) which does not presage wider application.
The Union members fear it is the forerunner of many similar
applications and will have a consequential result in the
elimination of clerical outworkers.
The Court accepts the workers fears are real and can only be
alleviated through direct discussions between the parties on the
clerical input for the future.
In respect of the introduction of the Ro - Ro service the clerical
staff were given an expectation that they would have an
involvement in the work of the service.
The fact is that it was not until discussions had been held with
Dublin Ferries and there had been considerable discussion with
other sections that the claimants were advised there would be no
clerical involvement. This together with talk of rationalisation
of the clerical staff with a consequential loss of clerical
employment only served to heighten the fears of the clerical
staff, particularly the clerical outworkers that their security of
employment was being threatened.
The Court recognises it is imperative for the future viability of
the port and DCH that the Company secure the service on offer.
With a view to achieving this the Court considers the fears of the
clerical staff in relation to their security have to be allayed
and their legitimate expectation regarding involvement has to be
addressed.
The Court accordingly recommends:-
1. That the clerical staff be involved in the service to the
extent of one person performing one basic hour per day
(Monday to Friday).
That suitable arrangements be made to ensure workers are able
to complete any normal work in which they may be involved,
and which cannot be completed as a consequence of their
involvement in the service.
2. That the Company and the clerical staff have discussions to
define the extent of clerical outworkers involvement in the
progressing of work through the port and in particular
specialised contracts for the future. These discussions to
be completed as early as possible.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91219 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13270
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an involvement for clerical workers in
a proposed roll on/roll off service to be introduced on 1st May,
1991.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1990 a customer called Dublin Ferries approached the
Company with proposals for the introduction of a new roll on/roll
off service in the port. The Company anticipated that it would
have an involvement in providing staff for the new service. On
28th June, 1990 the Company wrote to the Union stating that it
intended to employ, amongst others, one clerical/gateman in a two
cycle shift operation. The Company employs two types of clerical
staff i.e. internal workers who deal with accounts, wages, etc.
and outworker staff who supervise the loading of cargo etc. The
Union therefore had an expectation that the clerical staff would
have an involvement in the new service. The Company claims that
when it had further discussions with the customer regarding the
new service, the customer insisted that it did not require an
input from the Company's clerical staff. Following local
discussions with other sections it was proposed that the
clerical/gateman position would not be designated as a clerical
position. The Union was informed in February, 1991 that there
would be no clerical involvement by the Company in the new
service. The Union's claim is for an involvement for clerical
workers in the new service. The Company rejects the claim. No
agreement could be reached at local level discussions and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 12th
March, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd April,
1991 at which no agreement was reached. The Commission, having
formed the view that no further efforts on its part would resolve
the dispute, referred it the Labour Court on 29 April, 1991, under
Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Labour Court investigated the dispute on 30th April, 1991 and
issued a recommendation by letter on 1st May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By letter dated 28th June, 1990 the Company informed the
Union that there would be a need for a clerical/gateman
position in the new roll on/roll off service. The Union
therefore had a legitimate expectation that there would be a
clerical involvement in the new service. It was not until
February, 1991 that the Union was informed by the Company
that clerical involvement was not required. The Company
indicated that its position was non-negotiable. The
exclusion of the Union from normal negotiating procedures is
unreasonable and not conducive to good industrial relations.
2. In 1988, the Union made an agreement with the Company
that work appropriate to the clerical section would continue
to be carried out by that section, whether in normal time or
overtime. By proposing to give clerical work to Dublin
Ferries the Company is in breach of this agreement.
3. In the light of on-going rationalisation in the port,
the Company is missing an opportunity to safeguard the future
of its clerical section. The Company's proposals to allow
customers to bring in their own staff to do clerical work
undermines the jobs of the clerical section. It establishes
a precedent for other customers and threatens the jobs of the
clerical outworkers.
4. There is a need for a clerical involvement in the new
service. The extent of that involvement can be determined
through negotiations between the parties with a little
goodwill on both sides.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The roll on/roll off service is new to the port and the
Company has not had previous experience of the operations
involved in setting up such a business. On 28th June, 1990
the Company wrote to the Union in good faith indicating that
employment would be created for one clerical/gateman. It was
not until the Company had further discussions with the
customer and other sections that it found that there would be
no clerical involvement by the Company. The Union was then
advised of the position.
2. The Company has financial difficulties and needs to take
advantage of any opportunities to generate revenue. In this
case the customer has stipulated that it does not need the
services of the Company's clerical staff. The Company must
be flexible in meeting the needs of customers in order to
attract and retain business.
3. The customer has dictated the terms for the introduction
of the new service. There is no clerical work which the
Company could assign to the clerical section. If a
requirement for clerical work in connection with the new
business developes the Company will consider whatever
clerical involvement is necessary.
4. In 1989, the Company for the first time since its
establishment broke even financially. There was a financial
loss in 1990 and losses are expected in 1991. Essential
financial backing has been provided by the Dublin Port and
Docks Board. The Company must generate new business and
extra revenue in order to retain its financial backing. The
requirements of customers such as Dublin Ferries must be
accommodated in order to generate new business.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. It is clear to the Court that a great deal of confusion has
arisen through a lack of adequate dialogue between the parties to
this dispute.
The management on the one hand are adamant that the introduction
of the roll on/roll off service of Dublin Ferries is a unique
service, (quite different from the agency services normally
carried out by DCH) which does not presage wider application.
The Union members fear it is the forerunner of many similar
applications and will have a consequential result in the
elimination of clerical outworkers.
The Court accepts the workers fears are real and can only be
alleviated through direct discussions between the parties on the
clerical input for the future.
In respect of the introduction of the Ro - Ro service the clerical
staff were given an expectation that they would have an
involvement in the work of the service.
The fact is that it was not until discussions had been held with
Dublin Ferries and there had been considerable discussion with
other sections that the claimants were advised there would be no
clerical involvement. This together with talk of rationalisation
of the clerical staff with a consequential loss of clerical
employment only served to heighten the fears of the clerical
staff, particularly the clerical outworkers that their security of
employment was being threatened.
The Court recognises it is imperative for the future viability of
the port and DCH that the Company secure the service on offer.
With a view to achieving this the Court considers the fears of the
clerical staff in relation to their security have to be allayed
and their legitimate expectation regarding involvement has to be
addressed.
The Court accordingly recommends:-
1. That the clerical staff be involved in the service to the
extent of one person performing one basic hour per day
(Monday to Friday).
That suitable arrangements be made to ensure workers are able
to complete any normal work in which they may be involved,
and which cannot be completed as a consequence of their
involvement in the service.
2. That the Company and the clerical staff have discussions to
define the extent of clerical outworkers involvement in the
progressing of work through the port and in particular
specialised contracts for the future. These discussions to
be completed as early as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th May, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman