Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94667 Case Number: AD94102 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: B & I - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC223/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions the Court,
acknowledging the stated improvement in industrial relations in
the Company, believes that, ideally, the parties should endeavour
to reach agreement on manning for similar situations in the
future.
In the event of failure to reach agreement the Court's view is
that the Company decision on manning, arrived at in discussion
with the Master, should prevail. However, if a situation arises
where the Master disagrees with the Company decision on manning,
the Master may have to consider his personal position.
In the case under appeal, the Court finds no reason to change the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in relation to item 6, the
issue under appeal.
However, although the Court accepts that the Company made it clear
that officers who stayed on Board, other than the Master and Chief
Engineer, would be charged for Bed and Board, the Court is of the
view that the Company should consider not applying this charge to
individuals requested by the Chief Engineer to do work.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94667 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
B & I
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC223/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns an appeal by the Union against a #50 Bed
and Board (B & B) charge imposed on a number of ships'
officers during a dispute with the Company in June, 1994.
There were originally six items in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. Only the present item remains unresolved.
The dispute, which lasted from 17th - 21st June, 1994,
involved 9 officers aboard the M.V."Isle of Innisfree"
berthed in Liverpool. The Company claims that the officers
concerned, except for the Master (Captain) and Chief
Engineer, were instructed to leave the ship for the duration
of the dispute. It also claims that the officers were
informed of the #50 B & B charge if they chose to remain on
board. The Union maintains that, in the interest of safety
aboard ship, the officers remained on board.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 31st August, 1994. The relevant part
of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"Deduction for B & B. I cannot agree to the claim by
the Trade Union that this should be eliminated.
However, I believe that for those involved a deduction
of #20 per day by 3.50 days would be appropriate".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
9th November, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
14th December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Master of a ship is required to ensure that there
are safe working/living conditions on board the vessel.
Once an officer signs on Articles, the master of the
vessel is the sole employer. In the dispute on 17th
June, 1994, the master decided that the nine officers
concerned were necessary to ensure the ship could
function safely. In the event of problems aboard ship
it is the Master, not the Company, who is responsible.
2. The Master did not indicate to the officers that the #50
B & B charge would be imposed.
3. The Company did not request the Master to close Articles
and dismiss the crew. If the officers had closed down
all machinery on board ship it would have taken a week
to make the ship operational again.
4. The officers gave the Company more than adequate notice
to ensure that alternative arrangements could be made
for passengers and freight.
5. On 7th December, 1994, the "Isle of Innisfree" was again
berthed in Liverpool. As a result of bad weather the
master insisted that all officers were needed on board
for safety reasons.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot afford to provide free B & B to
workers who are in dispute with the Company and choose
to remain on board after being instructed to leave.
2. In a dispute in March, 1994, the Company clearly
informed workers of its intention to introduce the #50
B & B charge for future disputes.
3. In the dispute on 17th June, 1994, the officers were
instructed to leave the vessel and were informed of the
consequences if they failed to do so. The vessel was in
a safe berth in Liverpool.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions the Court,
acknowledging the stated improvement in industrial relations in
the Company, believes that, ideally, the parties should endeavour
to reach agreement on manning for similar situations in the
future.
In the event of failure to reach agreement the Court's view is
that the Company decision on manning, arrived at in discussion
with the Master, should prevail. However, if a situation arises
where the Master disagrees with the Company decision on manning,
the Master may have to consider his personal position.
In the case under appeal, the Court finds no reason to change the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in relation to item 6, the
issue under appeal.
However, although the Court accepts that the Company made it clear
that officers who stayed on Board, other than the Master and Chief
Engineer, would be charged for Bed and Board, the Court is of the
view that the Company should consider not applying this charge to
individuals requested by the Chief Engineer to do work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman