Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95413 Case Number: LCR14843 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH FERRIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of an agreement.
Recommendation:
5. 1. The Court, in the light of the oral and written
submissions made by the parties takes the view that, in
line with the practice in many enterprises, personnel
staff seeking transfers should be accommodated as far as
possible, particularly where circumstances arise which
provide an opportunity to deal with such requests.
2. In this case, the Court notes that three new positions
are being created, giving a total of six vacancies. The
Court considers that, given this opportunity, the
Company should fill these in a manner which (a)
accommodates the present permanent staff and (b) creates
further permanent positions from the temporary lists.
3. The Court, however, is concerned that in this case the
management have brought into effect two separate
agreements which, given their interpretation, could
prove divisive as between deck ratings employed by the
Company.
4. Given the view expressed by the Court in paragraph 1
above, and all of the circumstances of this case, the
Court recommends that an employee on the "Southern
Corridor" be transferred to the "Central Corridor" with
immediate effect, and that the fourth vacancy, together
with any further vacancies for permanent staff, be
filled in the first instance by transfers decided in
accordance with the procedures (i.e. seniority together
with suitability where relevant).
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95413 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14843
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH FERRIES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 22nd May, 1995, the Company and the Union concluded an
agreement at the Labour Relations Commission on the lashing
allowance for seamen on the Company's new ship the M.V. "Isle
of Innisfree". The agreement provided for the payment of a
wage increase, bonus and also the creation of new posts. The
final part of the agreement related to transfers from the
"Southern Corridor" (Rosslare) to the "Central Corridor"
(Dublin) and provided that transfers would be granted on the
basis of seniority (if applicable) and suitability. The
Company proceeded to implement the agreement and two seamen
were transferred from Rosslare to Dublin. Subsequently the
(Seamens' Union of Ireland) SUI (which concluded an agreement
on lashing with the Company on the 17th May, 1995) objected
to the transfers. The Company maintained that it could not
implement the agreement further on the transfers issue until
this dispute was resolved. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on the 13th July,1995. Agreement was not possible and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th
July, 1995. The Court investigated the dispute on the 19th
July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is an agreement in place which has been accepted
by the Company providing for the transfer of two workers
from the "Southern" to the "Central Corridor". There is
no justification for the Company's failure to implement
this agreement. Management has already brought into
operation the sections of the agreement which suit them.
It is incumbent on the Company to implement the
transfers of the two workers.
2. With the commissioning of the "Isle of Innisfree" the
Company concluded an agreement with the Union and
received a large degree of co-operation from workers
without any significant wage increases. The only part
of the agreement affording benefit to the workers is the
facility to move from Rosslare to Dublin should they so
desire.
3. The Company's refusal to implement the agreement because
of objections from the SUI is grossly unfair. In
relation to the SUI, the Union's understanding of their
agreement is that the section dealing with transfers is
silent. It would appear that there is no agreement with
the SUI in relation to how members coming into the
Company should transfer either onto the "Isle of
Innisfree" or to the more junior posts in Rosslare.
4. Two transfers have already taken place, one worker was
an SUI member, one worker was a SIPTU member. There was
no objections form the Company or the SUI on these
transfers. There are no valid reasons why the two
workers now seeking transfers should not be
accommodated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company concluded its agreement with the SUI
the issue of transfers did not arise. The Company in
its agreement with SIPTU accepted the proposal on
transfers in good faith and on the understanding that it
did not impact in any way on the SUI agreement.
2. The SUI maintain that the new appointments should be
made to the "Central Corridor" and that transfers should
then be dealt with on a voluntary basis. SIPTU contend
that the transfers should be implemented in the first
instance and consequently the new appointments made on
the "Southern Corridor".
3. The Company accepts that both Unions are fully committed
to their respective positions. However, the Company has
no option but to suspend further transfers until the
differences between the Unions can be resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. 1. The Court, in the light of the oral and written
submissions made by the parties takes the view that, in
line with the practice in many enterprises, personnel
staff seeking transfers should be accommodated as far as
possible, particularly where circumstances arise which
provide an opportunity to deal with such requests.
2. In this case, the Court notes that three new positions
are being created, giving a total of six vacancies. The
Court considers that, given this opportunity, the
Company should fill these in a manner which (a)
accommodates the present permanent staff and (b) creates
further permanent positions from the temporary lists.
3. The Court, however, is concerned that in this case the
management have brought into effect two separate
agreements which, given their interpretation, could
prove divisive as between deck ratings employed by the
Company.
4. Given the view expressed by the Court in paragraph 1
above, and all of the circumstances of this case, the
Court recommends that an employee on the "Southern
Corridor" be transferred to the "Central Corridor" with
immediate effect, and that the fourth vacancy, together
with any further vacancies for permanent staff, be
filled in the first instance by transfers decided in
accordance with the procedures (i.e. seniority together
with suitability where relevant).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th July, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.