Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92449 Case Number: LCR13724 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: B & I LINE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning proposed rationalisation within the Company.
Recommendation:
The recommendation of this case is very long and can be found in
the main body of the document.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92449 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13724
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: B & I LINE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning proposed rationalisation within the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Court investigated the above dispute on 27th, 28th, 29th
and 30th July, 1992. The following is the Court's recommendation.
*RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court intervened in this case because of the public
interest and the need to avert a major dispute in the Company.
The Court met the parties jointly and in side sessions for many
hours. The purpose of these long meetings was to get an agreed
information base on which to make a Recommendation.
The Court experienced great difficulty in ascertaining the exact
facts bearing on this case. The Court would have expected that,
in the normal way, these facts would have been clarified in the
course of negotiations between the parties or at conciliation.
This did not happen with the result that a considerable portion of
the Court's time was spent in an effort to get the parties to
agree upon such details as manning levels, salary levels, grading
and duties of staff in comparator companies The truncation of the
conciliation process was, therefore, to be deplored and the Court
would recommend strongly to both parties that, in the immediate
aftermath of the present dispute, they set about establishing by
agreement appropriate procedures that will ensure that this
deficiency is corrected for the future.
The Company's stated objective has been and remains to operate on
a cost base that is competitive and that objective is accepted as
valid and necessary for the long term survival of the Company, for
the attraction of necessary investment, and for secure employment
into the future. The importance to the national economy of
maintaining the service operated by the Company is fully
appreciated. This will not be achieved without the co-operation
of a work force committed to the operation of the service to
optimum standards of efficiency and effectiveness. This
co-operation must in turn depend on an appreciation by the work
force that they are being treated fairly and reasonably, in
particular by comparison with the workforce in other companies.
The Company has stated, and the Court notes, its intention to work
towards a competitive basis for all groups within the Company and
while there are issues common to other groups the specific issues
addressed now are specific to the Ships Officers.
The Company's proposals on crew ratios involve a major change from
current practice and affect working time, rest time on board, and,
because of the nature of the job, the entire life-style of the
Officers, involving as it does moving from 48 hour working to 7
day working.
Such a level of change is difficult to negotiate at any time. In
the current climate of poor relationships and lack of confidence
between the parties the negotiations have been seriously hampered.
It is essential that these difficulties are addressed so that on
conclusion of this particular dispute new relationships can be
built between the Company and the elected representatives of the
Marine Officers.
The Court is confident that, given the level of expertise
available on both sides, it should be possible to agree basic
negotiating and consultation procedures that work and that involve
a serious and meaningful commitment to real dialogue at local
level and to the voluntary use of agreed disputes resolution
machinery.
It is against that background that the Court has formulated the
following proposals which it recommends strongly for acceptance by
both parties in settlement of the dispute:-
1. Pay
The salaries of Ships Officers should be increased in
accordance with the recommendation of the Ships Officers
Salary Review Tribunal to the basic rates which
currently apply in Irish Ferries. These increases fall
to be implemented on a phased basis as follows:-
40% with effect from 1st September, 1992
30% with effect from 1st January, 1993
30% with effect from 1st May, 1993.
(Phase 2 of the PESP will apply to the current
rates with effect from 1st July, 1992)
(The Salary Review Tribunal was established in
accordance with a recommendation of the Labour
Court dated 1st March, 1991 - LCR13173)
2. Manning:
A crew level of 11 with a crew ratio of 2.6 should be
implemented for both passenger ferry ships on a phased
basis as follows:-
1st September, 1992 - crew 10, crew ratio 3;
1st September, 1993 - crew 11, crew ratio 2.6.
When the new rosters are in place all officers shall be
rostered for a continuous break of 8 hours in a
24 - hour period.
In recognition of the contribution of the officers to
the control of costs a special pay increase of 2% should
be applied with effect from each of the above dates. In
addition a lead-in payment of #2,000 should be made on
each of the above dates. No further increase will arise
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
3. All other issues tabled by the parties during the talks
should be the subject of negotiation in accordance with
the normal industrial relations procedures.
4. There should be an immediate return to full normal
working on the ships affected by the dispute.
5. The foregoing arrangements will not be subject to review
before 31st August, 1995 and no further cost-increasing
claims should be served before that date. This does not
preclude the processing of a claim on the 39-hour week.
6. This recommendation is being made on the basis that both
parties recommend acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation of this case is very long and can be found in
the main body of the document.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
30th July, 1992 -------------
A.O'S./U.S. Deputy Chairman