Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9265 Case Number: LCR13568 Section / Act: S32 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the Company's alleged breach of the Registered Comprehensive Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all of the submissions oral and
written made by the parties. The Court considers in relation to
this case it should reiterate the views it expressed in a previous
recommendation (LCR12832).
(a) "It is evident there is an urgent need to ensure
that the full potential of Dublin Port is achieved
to serve Irish Industry. It is imperative that if
new customers are to be attracted and present
customers retained they need to have confidence
that the port is being operated in a stable and
efficient manner. To enable this confidence to be
maintained and assured it is necessary to have a
continuation of the industrial peace that has
existed since 1985. This can only be achieved by
management and workers co-operating fully in the
working of the port."
The present case must be considered in the context of the
following recommendation which was made at that time.
"That the Comprehensive Agreement together with such
amendments as arise as a consequence of the Court's
recommendations be accepted by both parties and be operated
in accordance with the spirit and intent of the agreement
and in accordance with its provisions."
The issues before the Court arise as a consequence of the
provisions of the agreement not being adhered to, a development
which does not permit the stable and efficient operation of the
port and can only result in the erosion of confidence of the
customer.
In considering the issues the Court has taken into account the
fact that provisions of the 1990 agreement were not adhered to,
and the need to create a climate of goodwill which will assist the
management and workers to co-operate fully with one another with
the objective a achieving efficient working and enabling the port
to achieve its full potential.
Subject to full adherence to the provisions of the agreement and
to the resumption of discussions under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) Christmas Bonus:
The Court considers the Christmas bonus is a payment
made in respect of performance over a full year subject
to attendance. The 1991 bonus should be calculated
using the normal criteria and be paid at an early date,
to be agreed in the discussions referred to above.
(2) Payment For Ships Not Manned.
The agreement in respect of the payment for ships not
worked is not part of the registered agreement and given
the views expressed by the Company this issue should be,
in the Courts view, a matter for direct discussion
between the parties.
(3) Payment for Hours Worked
The Court given the provisions of the agreement does not
find grounds for the concession of the payments claimed.
(4) Holiday Pay.
The Court considers the offer of the Company should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9265 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13568
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 32(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the Company's alleged breach of
the Registered Comprehensive Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 28th January, 1992, the Union requested the Court to
investigate a claim, under Section 32(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1946, that the Company was in breach of the
Company/Union Registered Agreement. The Union alleges that the
Company is in breach of the Agreement in that it did not pay (a)
Christmas bonus, (b) hours worked on 2nd December, 1991, (c)
holidays booked at Christmas and (d) for specific ships which
worked during the recent stoppage. The Company rejects the
Union's claim. The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd
February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under Clause 26.7 of the Agreement a Christmas Bonus of
1 week's basic pay is normally awarded. The workers are
legitimately entitled to the bonus payment. The Union
contends that the bonus was paid in similar circumstances in
the past e.g. 1984.
2. Workers are entitled to be paid for the hours worked.
The Company is refusing to pay for hours worked on 2nd
December, 1991. A number of workers worked until 11.00 a.m.
on that particular day when the Company suspended/laid-off
workers. In similar circumstances in the past workers have
been paid. Workers are entitled to be paid for all hours
worked prior to the suspensions.
3. 3. Prior to the dispute which arose on 2nd December, 1991,
a number of workers, in accordance with the Agreement, had
booked holidays during the Christmas period. The Union
contends that any worker who had made holiday arrangement is
entitled to be paid for them.
4. It is normal practice for workers to be paid for
specific ships that dock. During the recent dispute a number
of these ships docked, however, the Company are refusing to
pay the workers. The Union believes the Company should pay
the workers as per agreement and custom and practice.
5. The Union maintains that the Company is denying these
legitimate payments in order to force the Union into talks on
re-organisation. The Union is not prepared to enter any talks
until outstanding entitlements are awarded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that no Court investigation should
be taking place as the issues in dispute have not been dealt
with in accordance with the procedures as set out in the
Agreement. There was an agreement between the parties to
resolve these and other issues in the Labour Relations
Commission. The Union's action in referring the matter to the
Court frustrates efforts being made to resolve the issues at
conciliation and denies opportunity to the Company to
negotiate the claims directly. The Company has not refused to
make the claimed payments but has refused to make them as a
precondition to re-organisation talks.
2. The Christmas Bonus is subject to attendance. All staff
who attended for or offered themselves for work received the
bonus. The bonus is designed to reward effort. It is also
part of an agreement which prohibits unofficial action. Such
action and prolonged absence from work should not be rewarded
by a bonus payment. By taking such action, the workers
effectively broke the Agreement.
3. Clause 21.6 of the Agreement specifically precludes
payment to workers who absent themselves from work without
express permission. The penalty being the loss of a day's
pay. The Company is not in breach of the Agreement.
4. There is no provision in the Agreement that holiday
money be paid to workers who book holidays with the Company.
Holidays can only be taken by agreement with the Company. All
holiday arrangements were cancelled for the striking workers
on the commencement of their action. The Company is not
insensitive to the plight of workers who may have paid money
for holidays arranged and it is commited to pay holiday pay to
any worker who can demonstrate that a financial loss was
incurred, or for other special reasons arising from holidays
taken or not taken during the strike.
5. The Union's claim for payment in respect of specific
ships docking in the port is based on a 1984 Agreement. These
particular ships are specifically excluded from the Registered
Agreement as per Clause 43.3. The Company is not therefore in
breach of the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all of the submissions oral and
written made by the parties. The Court considers in relation to
this case it should reiterate the views it expressed in a previous
recommendation (LCR12832).
(a) "It is evident there is an urgent need to ensure
that the full potential of Dublin Port is achieved
to serve Irish Industry. It is imperative that if
new customers are to be attracted and present
customers retained they need to have confidence
that the port is being operated in a stable and
efficient manner. To enable this confidence to be
maintained and assured it is necessary to have a
continuation of the industrial peace that has
existed since 1985. This can only be achieved by
management and workers co-operating fully in the
working of the port."
The present case must be considered in the context of the
following recommendation which was made at that time.
"That the Comprehensive Agreement together with such
amendments as arise as a consequence of the Court's
recommendations be accepted by both parties and be operated
in accordance with the spirit and intent of the agreement
and in accordance with its provisions."
The issues before the Court arise as a consequence of the
provisions of the agreement not being adhered to, a development
which does not permit the stable and efficient operation of the
port and can only result in the erosion of confidence of the
customer.
In considering the issues the Court has taken into account the
fact that provisions of the 1990 agreement were not adhered to,
and the need to create a climate of goodwill which will assist the
management and workers to co-operate fully with one another with
the objective a achieving efficient working and enabling the port
to achieve its full potential.
Subject to full adherence to the provisions of the agreement and
to the resumption of discussions under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) Christmas Bonus:
The Court considers the Christmas bonus is a payment
made in respect of performance over a full year subject
to attendance. The 1991 bonus should be calculated
using the normal criteria and be paid at an early date,
to be agreed in the discussions referred to above.
(2) Payment For Ships Not Manned.
The agreement in respect of the payment for ships not
worked is not part of the registered agreement and given
the views expressed by the Company this issue should be,
in the Courts view, a matter for direct discussion
between the parties.
(3) Payment for Hours Worked
The Court given the provisions of the agreement does not
find grounds for the concession of the payments claimed.
(4) Holiday Pay.
The Court considers the offer of the Company should be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
--------------------
20th February, 1992
B.O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman