Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94328 Case Number: LCR14592 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: D F DOYLE AND COMPANY - and - A WORKER |
Application of recruitment arrangements for casual dock labour in the Port of Cork.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions, both oral and written,
of the parties, notes that an agreement exists between the Cork
Dock Employers and SIPTU which governs the terms and conditions of
employment and recruitment of casual dock labour at the Port of
Cork.
The Company involved in this dispute is a member of Cork Dock
Employers and the worker is a member of SIPTU. Clearly, if any
member feels that the agreement referred to is not being
implemented in a fair manner he should raise it with his Union for
investigation.
The Court recommends that this course of action be followed.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94328 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
D F DOYLE AND COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Application of recruitment arrangements for casual dock
labour in the Port of Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in the Cork Port in
the early 1960's and received his docker's book in 1973. He
was placed with D F Doyle and Company Limited (Stevedores)
and operated on list 3 with a number of other workers who
received their books at that time. Currently there are
approximately 22 workers on the list.
D F Doyle and Company Limited is a member of the Cork Dock
employers who are party to a long-standing agreement with
SIPTU which governs the terms and conditions of employment
and recruitment of casual dock labour in Cork.
The worker claims that the existing selection process used to
recruit workers is unfair and degrading and is based on
favouritism resulting in a number of workers not getting
their fair share of the work available. The Company's
position is that it is not aware of any problems in the
selection process.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in
accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on
6th October, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A selection procedure should be put in place to ensure
that all workers get an equal share of the work
available.
2. It is unfair and degrading for workers to stand in line
and see the selection process operated on favouritism.
3. The treatment meted out to the worker concerned and to
other workers operating on list 3 has affected their
morale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing arrangements in respect of the employment
of casual dock labour in Cork has existed since the late
1940's and were negotiated with the Irish Transport and
General Workers' Union. Stevedore Companies take
instruction from the Union and employ dockers from Union
lists. The Union's position, as stated to the employers
and accepted by the dock employers section, has been
that each member of any particular list or grouping
enjoys equal status with all dockers on the list
regarding preference for available employment.
2. Any unilateral change to such a working and
long-standing agreement would result in an unnecessary
dispute between the dock employers and SIPTU. This
problem should be addressed between the worker and his
Union, who administered the dock employment scheme on
behalf of all dockers in Cork.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions, both oral and written,
of the parties, notes that an agreement exists between the Cork
Dock Employers and SIPTU which governs the terms and conditions of
employment and recruitment of casual dock labour at the Port of
Cork.
The Company involved in this dispute is a member of Cork Dock
Employers and the worker is a member of SIPTU. Clearly, if any
member feels that the agreement referred to is not being
implemented in a fair manner he should raise it with his Union for
investigation.
The Court recommends that this course of action be followed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.