Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9533 Case Number: LCR14745 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN FERRY PORT TERMINALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (1) compensation for 4 'A' list casual dockers and (2) refusal of voluntary severance.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Refusal of Voluntary Severance - The Court is of the view
that the Company's position is reasonable and therefore the
Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
(2) Compensation for 'A' List Casuals - The Court does not find
in favour of the claim as made and recommends that the
parties meet and agree compensation for the actual loss
suffered by two of the claimants.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9533 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14745
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUBLIN FERRY PORT TERMINALS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (1) compensation for 4 'A' list casual
dockers and (2) refusal of voluntary severance.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was formerly part of the B & I Line which
was taken over by the Irish Continental Group in
January, 1992. In April, 1992, the Company introduced a
rationalisation programme which included a voluntary
severance scheme. A rationalisation agreement was
signed in 1993 following the issue of LCR13922 on 14th
January, 1993.
2. Compensation for 4 'A' List Casual dockers
In April, 1992, there was 52 dockers' positions agreed
with the Union. In the course of the negotiations on
the rationalisation programme, 4 dockers left through
natural wastage. The Company did not replace the
workers pending the outcome of the rationalisation
negotiations. LCR13922 confirmed a new manning level of
36 dockers and 12 positions were made redundant through
the voluntary severance scheme.
3. As part of the rationalisation agreement, the permanent
dockers received compensation for loss of earnings
arising from the loss of various payments (details
supplied) including a lashings payment. The 4 casual
dockers on the 'A' list received the lashings element of
the compensation package. The Company claimed that this
was to be in full and final settlement of all issues
with the casual dockers.
4. On 23rd February, 1993, the Union claimed that the 4
casual dockers should receive the other elements of the
permanent dockers' compensation package. The claim was
made on the basis that the 4 casual dockers should have
been made permanent prior to the rationalisation
agreement in order to comply with the terms of the
manning agreement then in force. The Union's claim was
rejected by the Company.
5. Refusal of Voluntary Severance
Arising out of LCR13922, the Company reached agreement
with the Union on a voluntary severance scheme to reduce
the number of dockers from 48 to 36. It was agreed that
the redundancies would be subject to the Company's
approval and acceptance.
6. In a letter to the Union on 5th February, 1993, the
Company stated in point 7 as follows:-
"It must be accepted that there are 36 positions
for dockers as per the Labour Court Recommendation.
However, because of our commitment to the existing
casual list of dockers, we are prepared to make two
of these permanent. In addition should any of the
existing permanent staff wish to opt for voluntary
redundancy at this time they will be allowed to
leave and replaced immediately by casuals being
made permanent."
7. A dispute arose between the parties concerning
applications for redundancy by 2 workers who were out on
sick-leave since 1984 and 1990 respectively. The
Company refused the applications on the basis that the
workers would be retiring without returning to work in
July and June 1993 respectively. The Union claimed that
the Company was in breach of the terms set out in its
letter of 5th February, 1993.
8. Both disputes were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 13th
September, 1993 and 4th October, 1994. It was not
possible to resolve the disputes by conciliation and on
17th January, 1995, they were referred to the Labour
Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
disputes on 24th April, 1995, (the earliest date
suitable for both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Compensation for 4 'A' List Casual dockers
When negotiations on the rationalisation programme
commenced, the number of permanent dockers was 48. This
was contrary to the negotiated and agreed level of 52
permanent dockers. The 4 casual dockers on the 'A' list
had a right to permanency at that time.
2. The Court is asked to recognise that the 4 casual
dockers should receive equal treatment with permanent
dockers. The rationalisation agreement affected the 4
casual dockers in the same way as permanent dockers.
The casual dockers have yet to be compensated.
3. Refusal of Voluntary Severance
The Company's position is unacceptable as both dockers
were permanent at the time of the claim and as such were
covered by point 7 of the Company's letter of 5th
February, 1992. If the Company was not going to
accommodate workers on sick leave, this should have been
clearly outlined to the Union prior to the Agreement
being signed.
4. The Company has accommodated workers who were on
long-term sick leave who wish to avail of severance
packages. The Company's position has deprived workers
of their entitlements because they were out sick.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Compensation for 4 'A' List Casual dockers
The Union is asking the Company to appoint permanent
staff at the same time as it is making positions
redundant. The Union's position is at odds with the
logic of and necessity for a rationalisation agreement.
2. LCR13922 clearly identifies those who are covered by the
compensation payments. The casual dockers were excluded
and this was accepted by the Union at the time. The
lashings compensation payment was in full and final
settlement of all claims of the 4 casual dockers.
3. Refusal of Voluntary Severance
The Company's veto over redundancies extends across the
Company and had been applied in several instances. The
letter of 5th February, 1993, was not intended to
undermine this veto. It clarified the position that, if
more than the required number of permanent dockers
wished to accept voluntary severance, they would be
replaced from the casual list.
4. The Company has been generous by maintaining pension
contributions for both dockers given their employment
histories (details supplied). No other decision could
have been taken given that both workers were due to
retire within a matter of months and neither had any
prospect of returning to work in the interim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Refusal of Voluntary Severance - The Court is of the view
that the Company's position is reasonable and therefore the
Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
(2) Compensation for 'A' List Casuals - The Court does not find
in favour of the claim as made and recommends that the
parties meet and agree compensation for the actual loss
suffered by two of the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.