Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94422 Case Number: LCR14624 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the application of the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) to 9 pilots who are licensed to operate in the Limerick Pilotage District.
Recommendation:
The Court has taken note of the contents of the Grievance
Procedure Agreement between I.T.G.W.U. now S.I.P.T.U., and the
Commissioners and in particular Section 5 of that Agreement, by
which both parties agreed to use the services of the Labour Court
where they could not themselves reach agreement.
While the claim, in simple terms, amounted to the seeking of the
increases due under the P.E.S.P. from 1990, the Court had to have
regard to the pattern of developments during negotiations between
the parties since the original lodgement of the claim, as well as
to the submissions made by the parties at the hearing.
The Court noted the agreement between the parties in June 1991, to
the establishment of a Review Body to carry out an examination of
pay and conditions of pilots operating in the Shannon Estuary.
While the Court was not requested to adjudicate on either the
report in general or on its conclusions, it is evident to it that
the claim as made is linked to that report in that the Union has
based its claim on the second of the two proposals suggested by
the Review Body.
However, the second proposal, as written, is twofold in that it
suggested that, if the pilots decided to continue with existing
arrangements, a formal undertaking should be entered into between
the parties regularising that decision. No such formalisation has
occurred and it is evident that the parties still retain opposing
views as to the type of future pay structure which should apply.
The Court, accordingly, recommends as follows:-
(a) that the parties meet as soon as possible with a view to
reaching full agreement on either of the two proposals
contained in the report by the Review Body. In their
consideration of the proposals, the Court strongly
recommends that the parties have regard to all aspects
of the Report and to the current and future position of
Limerick Port vis-a-vis other ports as outlined in the
Report and at the Hearing;
(b) as the facts necessary to enable such agreement be
reached are contained in the Report and the submissions,
the Court considers that such discussions should be
complete by 31st March, 1995.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94422 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14624
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of the terms of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) to 9 pilots
who are licensed to operate in the Limerick Pilotage
District.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim concerns 8 pilots licensed by the Limerick
Pilotage Authority in accordance with the 1913 Pilotage
Act to guide ships in the Shannon Estuary and one
licensed pilot who operates in Foynes. Harbour charges
are levied in accordance with the Limerick Pilotage
Bye-Laws and any alteration to them is subject to the
approval of the Minister for the Marine. After the
payment of expenses (details supplied), the remainder of
the pilotage revenue is divided among the pilots and
this constitutes their earnings.
2. The pilots' rates were last increased in April 1990 by
7% under the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. Their current earnings are #37,000 per annum.
3. In March, 1990, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of
the 9 pilots for an increase in pay in accordance with
the terms of the PESP. The claim was referred to a
Review Committee which was set up to examine the pay and
conditions of the pilots. The Committee's report was
issued in April, 1992 and it recommended the following
options:-
(1) That the pilots opt for a salary type
arrangement similar to Cork and Dublin pilots.
(2) That the Shannon pilots continue with the
present existing arrangement and that a formal
undertaking between the parties will once and
for all regularise and settle the basis of
working arrangements for the pilots on the
Shannon.
4. The claim was the subject of local discussions and a
conciliation conference chaired by an Industrial
Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission on
4th July, 1994. The parties could not agree on any of
the 2 options proposed by the Review Committee. The
Union indicated that it wished to proceed with its
original claim of March, 1990 that account should be
taken of all subsequent rounds of the PESP. On 9th
August, 1994 the claim was referred to the Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Labour Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on
3rd November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Review Committee proposed two options. The
Authority is prepared to discuss the salary option only.
The salary conditions offered by Management are
unacceptable. The workers' rates have been increased
once (by 7%) since 1986. The pilots submitted their
claim in 1990. It is time that it was addressed. They
are seeking the same treatment as other workers and they
should be allowed to benefit from National Wage
Agreements.
2. In 1985 it was recommended at conciliation that the
Authority and the pilots should put in place a mechanism
to give automatic public sector increases. The
Authority has consistently refused to negotiate on this
issue and the pilots' pay has fallen behind.
3. The pilots accept that their overall earnings have
increased in recent years. This is due to productivity
increases. The cargo tonnage for the estuary has
increased fourfold over the last 10 years. The Shannon
pilotage district is the longest and most hazardous in
the country. The pilots deal with the largest vessels
entering the state. The pilots give a first class
service and wish to avoid a dispute situation.
COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pilots are currently earning #37,000 per annum
(approximately). Over the last 10 years earnings per
pilot have increased by #24,000. The pilots are now
seeking to further increase their earnings by the
application of the PESP. The pilots are self employed
and have refused to enter into a "waged" system of
payment. In the absence of a wage structure upon which
to base the PESP increases, the Authority cannot apply
the rates and charges.
2. The number of ships piloted annually is decreasing and
while earnings have risen steadily. The pilots earn more
per annum than pilots in the other three schedule 1
ports (details supplied). The Shannon pilots handle the
least number of ships, the least number of movements per
pilot and earn the most per net registered tonne handled
(details supplied).
3. The Report of the Review Committee was undertaken by
independent assessors with the agreement of both the
Authority and the Union and under agreed terms of
reference. The Report recognised that the pilots
earnings were consistently higher than colleagues in
other ports. In these circumstances the Authority
cannot concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken note of the contents of the Grievance
Procedure Agreement between I.T.G.W.U. now S.I.P.T.U., and the
Commissioners and in particular Section 5 of that Agreement, by
which both parties agreed to use the services of the Labour Court
where they could not themselves reach agreement.
While the claim, in simple terms, amounted to the seeking of the
increases due under the P.E.S.P. from 1990, the Court had to have
regard to the pattern of developments during negotiations between
the parties since the original lodgement of the claim, as well as
to the submissions made by the parties at the hearing.
The Court noted the agreement between the parties in June 1991, to
the establishment of a Review Body to carry out an examination of
pay and conditions of pilots operating in the Shannon Estuary.
While the Court was not requested to adjudicate on either the
report in general or on its conclusions, it is evident to it that
the claim as made is linked to that report in that the Union has
based its claim on the second of the two proposals suggested by
the Review Body.
However, the second proposal, as written, is twofold in that it
suggested that, if the pilots decided to continue with existing
arrangements, a formal undertaking should be entered into between
the parties regularising that decision. No such formalisation has
occurred and it is evident that the parties still retain opposing
views as to the type of future pay structure which should apply.
The Court, accordingly, recommends as follows:-
(a) that the parties meet as soon as possible with a view to
reaching full agreement on either of the two proposals
contained in the report by the Review Body. In their
consideration of the proposals, the Court strongly
recommends that the parties have regard to all aspects
of the Report and to the current and future position of
Limerick Port vis-a-vis other ports as outlined in the
Report and at the Hearing;
(b) as the facts necessary to enable such agreement be
reached are contained in the Report and the submissions,
the Court considers that such discussions should be
complete by 31st March, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.