FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : M BUTTERLY AND CO LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Revised labour costs.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There are 2 stevedoring companies operating out of Drogheda Port, of which M. Butterly is the smaller.
The majority of the business undertaken by Butterly Co. Limited, is in the movement of bulk cargo such as animal feedstuff and fertilizer while the other stevedoring company deals mainly in general cargo. Both companies draw their casual labour from a pool of twenty-five dockers who belong to the Drogheda Deep Sea Dockers' Association (D.D.S.D.A.) and who are also members of the ATGWU.
2. Butterly Limited accounts for approximately one-third of the business going through the Port. Piece rates apply at the Port (pence per tonne). The rates for loading/discharging are agreed on a contractual basis and are as follows; feedstuff and fertilizer - 74p and 62p per tonne respectively.
The Company also pays tea money amounting to approximately £3,000 per annum. In addition, other lump sums averaging 15p per tonne are paid. A pension contribution of 6% on basic labour costs attaching to the loading/unloading together with PRSI contributions are also paid.
3. The Company claims that it is losing money at present on its stevedoring business because its rates are out of line with rates charged at neighbouring Ports. It is not in a position to respond to this competition as its margins are too tight. The Company argues that the only scope for reducing its prices is by cutting the excessive labour costs charged by the dockers. This is necessary if the Company is to survive. The other stevedoring company concluded a separate agreement with the dockers.
4. A proposed five million pound capital investment project to develop Drogheda Port will depend on dock labour practices and major cuts in Port costs. The Company has been requested by the Harbour Commissioners to give a pledge of increased throughput at the Port on foot of the proposed development. The Company is unable to give this pledge until its dispute with the dockers on labour costs is resolved. The proposed capital investment will be funded equally by both the Harbour Commissioners and the E.U. The investment is vital if the Port is to survive as a going concern
5. In January, 1995 the Company proposed an independent arbitrator to try and resolve the dispute. The Union agreed to the Company's proposal. However, while the Union reluctantly accepted the arbitrator's recommendations, which would have impacted greatly on dockers' earnings, the recommendations were not acceptable to the Company and were rejected. In January, 1996 the Company issued redundancy notices to all dockers. The notices were withdrawn, however, to facilitate further negotiations. A subsequent Rights Commissioner's hearing also failed to resolve the dispute.
6. As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 21st May, 1996 (Dublin) and 22nd August, 1996 (Drogheda). However, no agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th September, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dockers accepted the independent arbitrator's recommendations for a wage freeze from 1st September, 1994 to 31st August, 1997 and also agreed to discount tonnage prices as follows; fertilizer from 62p to 50p per tonne and animal feedstuff from 72p to 62p per tonne.
2. The dockers are prepared to accept the new rates with immediate effect to apply to cargoes up to 3,000 tonne and are also prepared to negotiate a sliding scale of charges for cargoes in excess of 3,000 tonnes.
3. The Company should accept the arbitrator's recommendations on revised rates for bulk cargoes as shipped in and out of Drogheda Port.
4. Two other stevedoring companies operating out of the Port have agreed prices for bulk cargoes as structured by the independent arbitrator.
5. The Union claims that its members have made a genuine effort to reach agreement
on labour costs and to facilitate the development of the Port. A wage freeze for
1994/1996 is in operation and agreement to discount tonnage prices are examples of their willingness to compromise.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that labour costs in Drogheda Port are excessive vis-�-vis its competitors. It operates in a very competitive market and will not survive if labour costs are not significantly reduced. Under existing arrangements each docker costs the Company approximately £300 per day, a figure which is unsustainable for the future.
2. The Company is unable to give Drogheda Harbour Authority the guarantee it needs to develop the Port until its labour costs are brought more into line with that of its competitors.
3. The Company is prepared to compensate the dockers for twelve months loss of earnings which will amount to £3,000 - £3,500 gross per man.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions together with subsequent correspondence received from the Company and the Union.
It is clear to the Court from the information provided that there is a need for Drogheda Port to be competitive and to agree with arrangements which will improve efficiency and cost effectiveness if the Port is to be successful and employment maintained.
In this context the Court notes the view is expressed that if action is not taken in respect of these matters there is no future for the Port and the volume of business in the Port could be absorbed at alternative ports without straining the overall capacity position on the East Coast.
It is the view of the Court that the parties should seek discussions with a view to generally improving the operation of the Port.
In respect of the claim the Court considers the Union should accept the proposals of the Company as detailed in the letter of 25th June, 1996 subject to the following amendments.
1. That the rates in the Appendix "A" to that letter be increased by 15%.
2. That each docker be paid a sum equivalent to 12 months loss of earnings
(including lump sum) between the existing rates and the proposal as
amended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
6th December, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.