Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93615 Case Number: LCR14445 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MARINE TERMINALS LIMITED/OCEAN MANPOWER LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has studied the submission from the Union and the
various agreements made between the Union and Company. The Court
is satisfied that the Company is in breach of the agreement in
relation to Foremen. The Court taking into account the industrial
relations climate now existing is further of the view that the
most equitable way to resolve the dispute is for the Company to
pay the workers involved compensation.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union and Company enter
into negotiations immediately with a view to agreeing the amount
of compensation. Should they fail to reach agreement by the 31st
July, 1994 they should refer back to the Labour Court for
recommendation on the amount.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93615 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14445
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MARINE TERMINALS LIMITED/OCEAN MANPOWER LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a Company/Union
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1992, Dublin Port ws reconstituted into three
seperate companies, Marine Terminals Ltd, (MTL), XYZ Ltd, and
Ocean Manpower Ltd, (OML). Ex-employees of Dublin Port were
offered positions in each of these companies. Those who opted
for MTL and XYZ were offered permanent positions at wage rates
less than that which they were paid by Dublin Port while
those who opted for OML were to act as relief workers for MTL
and XYZ but were to be paid at a higher rate. It was
understood that employees would have access to positions on a
cross-company basis for a period of two years.
2. A dispute arose when the Company failed to "read" a
starting number of workers for the casual foremen's section.
The Company stated that it had been informed by the dockers
committee that the dockers would not take instructions from
two named casual foremen who had been checker foremen rather
than docker foremen and had no experience at stevedoring or
supervising dockers. Following a period of six months when
the two foremen were paid by the Company for the days they
were to act as relief, the Company suspended the arrangement
and removed all four foremen from the payroll. The Union
claim that the Company is in breach of its agreement, while
the Company argues that it is an intra-union matter.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 20th
August, 1993, 26th August, 1993 and 29th September, 1993.
Agreement could not be reached and the matter was referred by
the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 3rd
November, 1993. The Court investigated the matter on 25th
January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Companies were in breach of both the letter and
spirit of the agreements reached with the foremen's section.
2. The Company unilaterally withdrew the men's right to
work as per the agreements.
3. The foremen indicated that in line with Clause 8 of the
OML Agreement, they were prepared to enter into a
comprehensive training course to acquire the necessary skills,
and would accept assessment by an outside body to ensure they
had reached the necessary standard.
4. The Labour Court, over the years, has been consistent in
insisting that agreements freely entered into and agreed by
all parties must be observed by all concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was informed by the dockers's committee that
the dockers would not take instructions from two named casual
foremen whom they claimed had no experience at stevedoring or
supervising dockers.
2. To impose the casual foremen on the dockers would lead
to a full-scale dispute which would shut down the port.
3. The dispute is an intra-union matter.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court has studied the submission from the Union and the
various agreements made between the Union and Company. The Court
is satisfied that the Company is in breach of the agreement in
relation to Foremen. The Court taking into account the industrial
relations climate now existing is further of the view that the
most equitable way to resolve the dispute is for the Company to
pay the workers involved compensation.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union and Company enter
into negotiations immediately with a view to agreeing the amount
of compensation. Should they fail to reach agreement by the 31st
July, 1994 they should refer back to the Labour Court for
recommendation on the amount.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./U.S ------------------
Deputy Chairperson
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.