FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MARINE TERMINALS LIMITED - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the Company's reorganisation plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates in the South Quays container terminal in the deep sea section of Dublin Port. It is one of four stevedores operating in that area. The dispute concerns 35 workers including 20 dockers, 11 checkers and 4 clerks. The Company proposes to introduce major changes in work practices for all categories. The main provisions of the Company's plan are summarised as follows: reduced numbers employed, amalgamation of checker and clerical sections, reduced manning levels, increased use of technology, re design of working procedures, the introduction of a flexible system of payment, adjustments in holiday pay and Christmas bonus, postponement of the next phase of PCW for 12 months, postponement of the special bonus agreed in 1993 for 12 months and a number of redundancies. Management maintains that these changes are essential to remain viable and competitive. The Union, while accepting the need for some changes, has rejected the plan on the grounds that workers would suffer a substantial loss of earnings while affording the Company maximum flexibility.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and two conciliation conferences were held on the 23rd April and 10th June, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th June 1996. A Court hearing was held on the 28th June, 1996. A letter recommendation was issued on the 9th July 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has afforded significant co-operation to the Company in relation to the introduction of short time working and the 39 hour week. The Dockers Section only was affected by short time working and workers lost one week's pay in four.
2. While the Company has consistently stated that the potential loss of business is a factor in its cost reduction plan, the Union is not aware that business has been lost and in fact the number of container units going through the terminal has increased.
3. In August 1995 the Union agreed to short time working and to two redundancies in the canteen. This afforded substantial cost savings to the Company. On the finalisation of the agreement particular emphasis was placed on its duration i.e. 12 months from August 1995. It is essential that the Company honour this agreement and let it run its course.
4. Over the past number of months the Company has produced at least five documents outlining its proposals for cost cuts. There is a confusing degree of inconsistencies in these documents. This is a factor in the lack of progress at reaching agreement.
5. The Union contends that the Company is in a very sound financial position and it has embarked on a substantial investment in new machinery. On numerous occasions, the Union has sought access to Company accounts. The request has been refused.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company must have cost reductions in order to survive. Its viability is seriously threatened by out moded work practices and terms and conditions of employment which cannot be sustained in the prevailing competitive business climate.
2. The Company recognises that the changes being sought are substantial and represent an enormous departure from traditional work practices and terms and conditions of employment which previously applied at the terminal. However these changes are essential and are similar to the working arrangements which apply in other posts.
3. If pay roll and other cost savings cannot be achieved the Company will not be viable and there is the possibility of the loss of 35 jobs with resultant employment prospects being remote.
4. The Company accepts that the changes sought would reduce individual earnings. Nevertheless Management believes that earnings in the Company would still be above the average of comparable terminal operations in Dublin port.
5. The Company has endeavoured, over the past 18 months to address its payroll cost problem. It is essential that immediate action is taken to reduce these excessive costs if the Company is to continue to trade.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and the financial information subsequently supplied by the Company.
While the Company initially benefited financially from a number of one off occurances and lack of alternative facilities there is evidence that this situation is changing significantly.
It would appear that the successful financial performance of the Company is now under pressure for a number of reasons and requires urgent attention. While the Court is conscious of this situation, it is of the view that no meaningful negotiations have taken place in relation to the changes necessary to ensure that the Company can compete in the changing marketplace and thereby avoid any further deterioration in the Company's finances.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties enter into discussions immediately on the changes required in the operations and work practices of the Company to ensure the ongoing survival of the Company.
These discussions to be completed by 1st August 1996. If the parties fail to reach agreement the Court will, on request, issue a recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th July, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.