Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9528 Case Number: LCR14744 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN FERRY PORT TERMINALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning severance terms for casual dockers.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
Right to rehire
The Union's case rests on a clause in LCR13922 issued in
January 1993. It is clear to the Court that acceptance of
the Voluntary Severance Scheme in June 1994, which included a
specific clause with regard to "future employment", altered
this position and, accordingly, the Court does not find the
Union's case sustained.
Redundancy Payment
The Court is of the view that the Company's position is
reasonable and accordingly recommends its acceptance.
Casual Dockers - Permanency
The Court agrees that it would have been unrealistic to
appoint people to permanent positions whilst aware of the
loss of the Pandora contract in the near future.
The Court, accordingly, does not find the Union's case sustained.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9528 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14744
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 severance terms for casual dockers.
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. The rationalisation agreement required the reduction in
the number of dockers from 48 to the new manning level
of 36. The level was made up from time to time by using
dockers off the casual lists (details supplied).
3. In May 1993, Pandora gave the Company 12 months notice
of its intention to terminate an agreement with the
Company for the provision of a Dublin/Liverpool ro/ro
service. Over 100 jobs in the Company were directly
affected including 24 permanent dockers.
4. A number of the dockers availed of the voluntary
severance scheme which left a surplus of 12 permanent
dockers. Half of these were laid off while the other
half were trained in on other activities. First
preference for any work that arose was given to the
permanent dockers on lay-off and consequently the
possibility of work arising for the 6 casual dockers was
virtually eliminated.
5. The casual dockers were offered a voluntary severance
package of 8 weeks' severance pay regardless of service.
The offer was also dependant on acceptance of no right
to rehire.
6. The Union submitted the following claims on behalf of
the 6 casual dockers:
(a) Casual Dockers should have been made permanent
prior to June 1994, and therefore, they would now
be entitled to the same redundancy payments as
permanent staff;
(b) In respect of severance calculations, full credit
should be given for each year of service from the
date they were first employed regardless of how
many days they actually worked in the years in
question and;
(c) In addition to severance that they retain their
existing rights as casual list Dockers (i.e., first
call on future casual work and any permanent
vacancy that might arise within the Dockers'
Section).
7. The claims were rejected by the Company and referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 14th September, 1994. The
dispute could not be resolved by conciliation and on
11th January, 1995, it was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th April,
1995 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In LCR13922 the Court stated:
"the Company's right to selection and recruitment of
labour to be conditional on the present casual list
of employees retaining their existing right to
future vacancies".
This gives a status similar to that of a permanent
docker to the casual dockers on the list at that time.
The casual dockers are therefore entitled to the same
severance terms as permanent dockers.
2. The casual dockers have been available to the Company
over many years and their severance terms should be
related to the years spent on the casual list. The
Company cannot be allowed to ignore the service and
commitment which it has received from the workers over
the years.
3. Some progress was made on the issue of permanency for
casual dockers until the Company stopped filling vacant
posts in late 1993. The Company's decision at that time
was at odds with the terms of LCR13922. The casual
dockers have suffered great losses and they require to
be compensated. In addition the workers should retain
their right to be rehired should the circumstances of
the Company change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company could not have made the casual dockers
permanent at a time when it was making large cuts to its
permanent workforce. It is not reasonable for the Union
to claim that the casual dockers should be credited with
full service for each year they were employed. In the
period 1987 to 1992, the average number of days worked
by casual dockers was 60 per year. In those
circumstances any statutory entitlement would be less
than the settlement offered by the Company.
2. The basis of making a payment to casual dockers was to
buy-out any future entitlements that they might
otherwise have. Only those staff who did not avail of
the package have any entitlements to future employment.
The Union is aware that the voluntary severance scheme
is closed and not available to those remaining casual
dockers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
Right to rehire
The Union's case rests on a clause in LCR13922 issued in
January 1993. It is clear to the Court that acceptance of
the Voluntary Severance Scheme in June 1994, which included a
specific clause with regard to "future employment", altered
this position and, accordingly, the Court does not find the
Union's case sustained.
Redundancy Payment
The Court is of the view that the Company's position is
reasonable and accordingly recommends its acceptance.
Casual Dockers - Permanency
The Court agrees that it would have been unrealistic to
appoint people to permanent positions whilst aware of the
loss of the Pandora contract in the near future.
The Court, accordingly, does not find the Union's case sustained.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.