Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91335 Case Number: LCR13436 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 Checkers concerning a review of the Comprehensive Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions makes the following
recommendations as a basis for acceptance of the Comprehensive
Agreement.
1. That the attendance bonus be increased by £32.50 per week.
2. That service pay be increased from £4 to £6 per week.
3. That the productivity measures of the Company as proposed be
accepted subject to the following amendments.
Clause 6 - The manning level should be as shown below.
1 Ship - 4
2 Ships - 6
3 Ships - 8
4 Ships - 10
4. That the issues relating to checkers doing checkers work and
the automatic replacing of staff should be the subject of
urgent discussions between the parties. Failing agreement
the outstanding issues in dispute to be referred to the Court
for a recommendation.
5. Subject to the acceptance of the agreement as amended by this
recommendation that a lead-in payment of £500 be paid with a
further £500 being paid some six months later.
The Court calls on the parties to operate the agreement in a
spirit of co-operation and goodwill and in a manner which will
ensure industrial peace, and contribute to the viability of the
Port.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91335 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13436
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 on behalf of 30 Checkers concerning a
review of the Comprehensive Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The working arrangements covering the Checker Section are
governed by the 1985 Comprehensive Agreement and the 1987 Addendum
to that Agreement. The 1985 Agreement was revised for the Docker
and Foreman Sections and the Union has sought a similar review for
the Checkers. The Union is claiming an increase in attendance
bonus of £42, a £6 transfer fee to be paid when a Checker is
transferred, a £2 increase in service pay, payment of £11.54 for
extra flexibility over 2 days per week or 100 days per year, a
lead-in payment of £1,400 and retrospection on the increase from
beginning of April, 1991. The Company rejected the Union's claim
but said that it was prepared to negotiate a reasonable increase
in the attendance bonus in return for certain productivity
measures, bearing in mind the increases granted to the Docker and
Foreman Sections. (The changes sought by the Company are listed
in Appendix 1). Local negotiations failed to resolve the matter
and on 15th May, 1991, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 23rd and 29th May, 17th and
19th June, 1991, but no agreement was reached. On 28th June,
1991, the parties requested the Labour Court to investigate the
dispute and the Court received a report of the dispute from the
Commission in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court investigation took place on 12th July, 1991;
however it was decided that the parties should return to
conciliation talks to enable discussions to take place on all
aspects of the Comprehensive Agreement. Further conciliation
conferences took place on 30th July, and 1st August, 1991, however
agreement was not reached and the parties again requested the
Court to investigate. A further Court hearing took place on 3rd
September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The present attendance rate for a Checker is £54.47.
The Checkers, given increases awarded to other Sections, now
find themselves at a distinct disadvantage with regards to
earning power vis-a-vis other Sections and seek an increase
of £42 in the attendance bonus. Inherent in this claim is a
payment for flexibility equal to that of the Dockers Section,
which in essence gives an additional £12 per day for flexible
days worked over 100 days in a 12 month period. (See Labour
Court Recommendation No. 12832).
2. The main reason for seeking an increase in attendance
money is to re-establish parity with the Foremen. In 1985,
Checkers and Foremen had equal attendance payments. In 1987,
when the Checkers concluded the Addendum Agreement they
received an increase in attendance money. This increase was
passed onto to the Foreman Section. The Foremen have since
received an increase and a similar increase should be applied
to the Checkers.
3. The Union has made various suggestions regarding the
method and system of flexibility payments. These have been
rejected by the Company. The Company are seeking greater
flexibility from the Checkers but are not prepared to
recognise it as such. There is a distinct difference of
opinion between the parties as to what flexibility has
already been granted. The Union maintains that the nature
and frequency of the flexibility now being sought bears
little resemblance to the flexibility agreed on those
occasions. In essence the type of flexibility sought would
mean that jobs would be left unmanned, such as the
non-manning of the Tallyman's position under certain
circumstances.
4. The Union's main responses to the Company's productivity
measures are set out below:
Clause 1. Overtime has always been broken down into mid-week
(Mon. - Fri.), Week-end (Sat. - Sun.) and Bank
Holiday overtime.
Clause 6. The Union makes the following offer on manning.
Mid Week
1 Ship 5 Checkers (currently 7)
2 Ships 7 Checkers (currently 10)
3 Ships 9 Checkers (currently 12)
4 Ships 11 Checkers (currently 15)
Week-end
1 Ship 4 Checkers (currently 6)
2 Ships 7 Checkers (currently 9)
3 Ships 9 Checkers (currently 12)
4 Ships 11 Checkers (currently 15)
Offer is made in context of "open house" situation.
Clause 8. This is a specific job and should be left as such.
Clause 9. 1) Okay provided only checkers do checkers work.
2) Okay from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
3) Okay once transfer fee applies.
4) Okay provided it's seen to be fair.
5) Okay provided it continues till ship is
finished.
Clause 10. Okay if status quo remains.
Clause 11. Safety aspect to be taken into account.
Clause 12. Okay provided space is for expected ships.
Clause 16. Union does not understand why Company wants this.
Agreement already exists to cover working between
1 p.m. - 2 p.m. on an overtime basis.
Clause 18. Okay provided management structures examined also.
The Union also argue that numbers should be
maintained i.e. workers replaced as they retire
etc... The Union further believes that only
checkers should do checkers jobs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has indicated that it is prepared to
negotiate a reasonable increase in the attendance bonus in
return for certain productivity measures, bearing in mind the
increases granted to other Sections.
2. Both sides were party to the P.N.R. and the Union are
currently claiming the terms of the P.E.S.P. The terms of
the P.E.S.P. would apply from 1st June, 1991. Both
agreements prohibit cost-increasing claims beyond the terms
laid down in these agreements. The claims here concerned are
in addition to the terms of these agreements.
3. The Union are seeking to justify this increase by
arguing that the Checkers' and Foremen's attendance bonus was
the same until 1987 and that this position should be
restored. In 1987, the Union on behalf of the Foreman
Section claimed a differential in attendance bonus above the
Checker Section. In an agreement, signed by the Union, this
claim was settled on the basis "that they apply solely to the
Foreman Section and establish no precedent for any other
group". Since then, Checkers' and Foremen's attendance bonus
earnings have been different, (£54.47 and £59.72 respectively
prior to the Foremen's Comprehensive Review). The Foremen's
attendance bonus has risen by £37 since completion of their
Comprehensive Review. There is no justification in the
Union's claim for a £42 increase in the bonus for Checkers.
If there is any justification for an increase it has to be
significantly below that granted to Foremen.
4. The Union has argued in the past that Foremen should
have a substantial differential over the men they supervise
i.e. Dockers and Checkers. It is not reasonable to argue now
that Checkers should get the same let alone a higher increase
than the Foremen. A reasonable increase may be justified in
return for the modest productivity changes being sought.
5. It is inconsistent on the one hand to claim an increase
in attendance bonus based on Foremen's bonus and at the same
time to claim flexibility and transfer payments specific to
Dockers. The conclusion of this would be that the Checkers
would receive greater payments that the Docker or Foremen
Sections. If this happens the Company would be faced by
immediate claims from those Sections.
6. The Union is attempting to achieve a second payment for
flexibility. The Union appears to suggest that previous
agreements provided for "full flexibility" but not "total
flexibility". The Company rejects this argument and has no
intention of paying for this flexibility again. The Union
has indicated that it was because of a lack of manning that
this situation of increased flexibility had come about. The
Company has a chronic absenteeism problem among its Checker
Section. The Company has offered to employ 3 - 4 Temporary
Checkers to help alleviate the situation.
7. Service pay increased by £2 per week for Dockers and
Foremen but only in the context of an overall agreement. It
should not be taken for granted that the Company is prepared
to offer this increase without being satisfied as to the
overall cost of any new agreement and the productivity
elements therein.
8. The cost of the Union's claim per Checker would be a
minimum of £83.08 per week (£42 attendance bonus, £23.08
extra flexibility for minimum of 2 extra days per week, £2
service pay, £18 for minimum of 3 transfers per week). This
represents a total annual cost of £129,605. The Company
cannot contemplate anything close to this enormous cost and
has no intention of doing so. The Company is in a
loss-making situation with a projected loss of £1m this year.
Unwarranted cost-increasing claims cannot be conceded.
9. The productivity proposals put forward by the Company
would generate an annual saving of only £28,000 in overtime
savings. The modest productivity proposals put forward by
the Company only warrant a modest increase in attendance
bonus.
10. The Union are claiming a lead-in payment to a new
agreement on the basis of the delay in concluding a
Comprehensive Review for the Checkers. The delay in dealing
with this matter was not the Company's fault. The Union
waited to see how other Sections fared before proceeding with
the Checkers' review. This has led to a certain frustration
among Checkers but the Company cannot be held responsible for
these delays, nor should the Union's strategy be rewarded by
a lead-in payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions makes the following
recommendations as a basis for acceptance of the Comprehensive
Agreement.
1. That the attendance bonus be increased by £32.50 per week.
2. That service pay be increased from £4 to £6 per week.
3. That the productivity measures of the Company as proposed be
accepted subject to the following amendments.
Clause 6 - The manning level should be as shown below.
1 Ship - 4
2 Ships - 6
3 Ships - 8
4 Ships - 10
4. That the issues relating to checkers doing checkers work and
the automatic replacing of staff should be the subject of
urgent discussions between the parties. Failing agreement
the outstanding issues in dispute to be referred to the Court
for a recommendation.
5. Subject to the acceptance of the agreement as amended by this
recommendation that a lead-in payment of £500 be paid with a
further £500 being paid some six months later.
The Court calls on the parties to operate the agreement in a
spirit of co-operation and goodwill and in a manner which will
ensure industrial peace, and contribute to the viability of the
Port.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th October, 1991 Tom McGrath
B.O'N / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
Changes being sought by the Company
1. Overtime (Monday - Sunday)
Full flexibility in overtime will apply when all checkers are
working (excluding those who are unavailable or who are
unwilling to work overtime).
1a. In such instance full flexibility will apply in overtime and
no claims will be made for additional "freight" or payments.
2. Full Flexibility
Full flexibility will operate throughout the entire day when
checkers will, when necessary and practical, operate two or
more jobs, e.g.
Bookman plus shed or road.
Shed plus road.
Tally plus shed or road.
Container compound plus tally.
Container compound plus cars.
Sheds plus stripping or stuffing containers.
Tally plus ships plan for container vessels.
Absence of detail does not take from the generality of this
clause.
3. Container Interchange
Checkers will co-operate with whatever form of container
interchange may be introduced without any claim for extra
personnel or money.
4. Radios
If radios are introduced by the Company, the Checkers will
co-operate in utilising them to maximum advantage, without
further claims.
5. Computerisation
A computerised system will be introduced. The checkers will
co-operate in its operation and where necessary, undergo some
training, without further claims. They will operate a "T"
card system if required as part of the new system.
6. Ships working simultaneously
The manning on container vessels will be as follows:-
One Ship 3 checkers
Two Ships 5 checkers
Three Ships 7 checkers
Four Ships 9 checkers
Their duties will include tallying for inwards cargo and
shifts of units, plan man, loading checker, back-up man,
bookman, deliveries or receiving any cargo.
7. Deliveries/Receiving Cargo
Deliveries or receiving of all cargo is part of the checkers
duties when ships are working.
8. Plan Man
There will be no specific man employed as plan man, unless
required by the Company. This duty will be undertaken where
necessary by the tallyman who will supply unit numbers,
weight, port of discharge, etc.
9. Tally Man
1. In some instances no tallyman will be employed.
2. Where a tallyman is employed he may be required, in
addition to this normal tally duties, to supply full
information for a stowage plan and for damage reports.
3. He may be shifted to other work during the day.
4. Allocation of tallyman will be made by the foreman.
5. Tallyman should assist in sorting cargo during discharge
and tally or check cargo on completion of days work or
tally to marks and numbers as required.
10. Sorting Cargo
Checkers will assist in sorting cargo.
11. Container Seals
To examine Seals and record numbers, if required and if
requested to place ordinary or Bull Seals on Containers.
12. Removal of Old Cargoes
To provide more cargo space, cargoes on the quays/sheds,
longer say than 6 weeks should be removed to storage.
13. Documentation
The introduction of new documentation for work will not be
restricted.
14. Customer Service
Checkers will co-operate with improved methods of dealing
with customers requiring service at hatches.
15. Internal Union Representation
The Company is seeking a reduction in the number of the
checkers negotiating committee to not more than three
persons.
16. Tea/Lunch Breaks
The Company is seeking the introduction of staggered tea
breaks and lunch breaks.
17. Joint Forum
A Joint Forum should be established. This forum will
represent all interests within the Company.
18. Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.)
As with other sections, the Company is seeking agreement with
the Checking Section on the appointment of the I.P.C. to
examine the efficient and effective operation of Dublin Deep
Sea Docks.
19. Health and Safety
The Company is seeking representation from the Checkers
Section on a Safety Committee which will represent all
interests in the Company. This Committee will act as an
advisory group to management and will be concerned with
encouraging and prompting safety measures and standards.