Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91435 Case Number: LCR13446 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BELL SHIP MANAGEMENT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of ships officers and ratings for compensation because of foregoing pay increases.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
In the light of these submissions it is the opinion of the Court
that the increases in question in this case were not simply
postponed but were traded as part of an overall agreement on
conditions generally in the Company. In these circumstances the
Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91435 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13446
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BELL SHIP MANAGEMENT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of ships officers and ratings for
compensation because of foregoing pay increases.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the Union and Company agreed to forego pay increases
due under the 26th Wage Round and under the three subsequent
phases of Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.), up to 31st
March, 1991. The agreement was reached in the context of a
Company rationalisation plan. In return the Company agreed to
guarantee the future of eight Irish Flag Ships maintaining
employment at existing workforce levels. In 1990 the Union
claimed a substantial salary increase by way of compensation for
the four year pay freeze. The Company offered to pay the terms of
the P.E.S.P. plus a once off payment of £200.00 to each worker.
The Union rejected this offer. The issue was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission on the
12th March, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the 7th
June, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 14th August, 1991. The Labour
Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on the 24th September,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cumulative loss to the workers concerned during the
lifetime of the P.N.R. amounted to approximately 7%. The pay
freeze also included additional pay increases or other cost
increasing claims during the term of the P.N.R., as well as
pay increases due under the 26th Wage Round. Most employers
both in the private and public sectors paid increases during
the P.N.R. ranging from 5%-16%.
2. The Union would give favourable consideration to the
following increases:-
(1) Full payment of the P.E.S.P. over the three year
period (a total of 10.75%),
(2) Clause 3 - P.E.S.P. (agreement on pay and
conditions) which is 3% on 1st April, 1991,
(3) £1,000 to each worker concerned the amount to be
consolidated into basic pay.
This settlement is reasonable in view of the fact that the
workers concerned have not received a pay increase for over
four years. As a consequence they have suffered a reduction
in their living standards of approximately 14%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company provides good pay and conditions of employment
for the workers concerned. The need for cost reductions and a
rationalisation programme as outlined in the agreement was
essential to the Company's survival as otherwise Irish flag
vessels could not compete with charter vessels or ships
operating under non-Irish flags which are crewed at a lesser
cost.
2. The Company operates a unique leave structure whereby
every day worked is matched by a day's leave. This means that
the Company must pay two crews to operate every ship. The
workers concerned did not wish to make any change in the leave
structure and an alternative cost reduction mechanism was
agreed whereby pay increases were withheld. The Union
formally accepted this pay freeze agreement which covered the
period up to March, 1991. Any increases now due are covered
by the P.E.S.P. Neither the "in-house" agreement nor the
P.E.S.P. make any provision for the "catch up" increases being
sought by the Union.
3. There is no justification for the Union's claim as the
workers concerned have not "fallen behind" comparable
employments (details supplied to the Court). The Company's
offer to implement the P.E.S.P. as from 1st April, 1991 is
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
In the light of these submissions it is the opinion of the Court
that the increases in question in this case were not simply
postponed but were traded as part of an overall agreement on
conditions generally in the Company. In these circumstances the
Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
22nd October, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.