Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93506 Case Number: LCR14215 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Productivity claim and Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. In order to finally resolve this dispute which has been
on-going in one form or other since 1988, the Court recommends
that in addition to their present offer, the Commissioners should
pay the nineteen officers a lump sum of #850 each and that the
Union should accept that this payment disposes of all claims
arising from the rationalisation of the service.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93506 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14215
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Productivity claim and Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are the general Lighthouse
Authority for Ireland and are responsible for maintaining aids to
navigation around the coast of the whole island. The officers
concerned are employed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights as
marine officers on its two lighthouse tenders, the "Granuaile" and
the "Gray Seal". These lighthouse tenders which are based in
Dublin/Dun Laoghaire, transport men, stores and equipment to
lighthouses and lightfloats around the coast. In addition they
place lightfloats, lanbys and buoys on stations and transport
technicians to and from these navigational aids for maintenance
purposes.
In 1987, at the request of the Department of Transport in London,
a firm of consultants carried out a comprehensive review of the
Commissioners' tender vessel requirements and concluded that one
tender could adequately service the Irish Coast. Prior to the
consultants review, the Commissioners operated two lighthouse
ships the "Atlanta" and Granuaile". The Commissioners of Irish
Lights decided that for a one-ship operation they would use the
Granuaile and withdraw the "Atlanta" from service. As it would
take approximately two years to set up a one-ship operation, it
was necessary in the interim to supplement the service given by
the "Granuaile" and approval was given to purchase an alternative
vessel, which was re-named the "Gray Seal". Both vessels were
modified to facilitate operating with reduced crews.
At the end of the two year period the "Gray Seal" was withdrawn
from service in order to test the one-ship operation. At the
conclusion of the trial period it was shown that one ship could
not adequately meet the requirement of the lighthouse service and
the "Gray Seal" returned to service operating on a half time basis
from 1991.
In November, 1988 the Labour Court issued L.C.R. No. 12120, which
recommended payment of #750 to ratings employed by the
Commissioners of Irish Lights on its two lighthouse tenders for
their co-operation in a proposed rationalisation of the lighthouse
tender service. The officers concerned are seeking a lump-sum
payment of #2,000 and payment of the 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
from 1st January, 1993 in respect of their contribution to the
process. Local level discussions took place but no agreement
could be reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 6th
July, 1993 but no agreement was reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 31st August, 1993. The Court
hearing took place on 29th September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has stated that constraints under the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery and the P.E.S.P. has
prevented them from conceding the officers' claim.
2. At the time of the P.N.R. a separate pay claim to catch-up
with officers in similar employment with the B & I was being
pursued. It was agreed by both parties that the claim in
relation to work practices was separate from these
discussions.
3. While the number of the officers concerned was not
reduced, it was obvious that an increasing workload would fall
to others. The officers decided to take on the extra workload
and submit a claim.
4. The officers have co-operated fully with management in the
introduction of new technology and new work practices. These
changes have resulted in the officers carrying out work they
previously supervised.
5. Management has acknowledged the contribution made by the
officers to the rationalisation of the lighthouse tender
service.
6. The officers recognise the pressures and budgetary
constraints under which the service operates. For that reason
they have co-operated with the considerable changes that have
taken place. The responsible approach of the officers should
be recognised and rewarded.
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The situation facing the Commissioners in 1987 was that
their sponsoring Government Departments had accepted a
consultant's report which found that one tender could service
the Irish coast. The report also pointed out that
sub-contractors, mainly those engaged in the offshore oil
industry, were able and willing to undertake the work on a
more competitive basis than Irish Lights. As a result, severe
budgetary restrictions were imposed.
2. In these circumstances, the subsequent implementation of:-
- pay increases of between 8-10% over and above
National Pay Agreements,
- the establishment of a biennial review of pay,
- substantial improvements in pay and conditions for
continuously employed temporary Officers,
- the reckoning of acting periods for incremental
credit,
- a Dental Benefit Scheme,
- a supplementary payment for attending training
courses during liberty period.
in addition to increases under National Agreements must be
regarded as an exceptional achievement by the Commissioners.
3. Additionally, the shortfall of 8-10% revealed by the pay
review in 1989 was caused by the consolidation of allowances
and productivity payments particular to employment on B & I
LoLo vessels. Approval to apply these increases to Irish
Lights officers was only achieved against the background of
changed work practices caused by the rationalisation of the
tenders.
4. The basis for the Union's lump sum claim, i.e. comparison
with the tender ratings' award, does not stand up. The
ratings' case was made on the basis of increased productivity
resulting from greatly reduced numbers - this does not apply
in the officers' case.
5. The number of employed officers' was increased by an
additional officer per roster at the time of the
rationalisation in 1988, to take account of changed work
practices on board. The changes in work practice were
considered to be in line with operational practices on board
the tenders of the other two General Lighthouse Authorities
and indeed in shipping generally.
6. The Commissioners of Irish Lights has made a genuine
effort to address the Officers' stated grievance by accepting
their past and continued co-operation with the rationalisation
process as their contribution to cost reduction in the
Service. The offer of a continuous payment of 3% under Clause
3, which reckons for pension purposes, without any further
contribution towards cost saving measures should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In order to finally resolve this dispute which has been
on-going in one form or other since 1988, the Court recommends
that in addition to their present offer, the Commissioners should
pay the nineteen officers a lump sum of #850 each and that the
Union should accept that this payment disposes of all claims
arising from the rationalisation of the service.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
____________________
14th October, 1993. Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.