FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY HARBOUR COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) - Local Authorities deal - £16.04.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Galway Harbour Company was set up under the Harbours Act of 1996 to manage Galway Harbour, the Galway Harbour Commissioners having been abolished on the 1st of March, 1997. The claim, which is on behalf of 4 full-time and 2 part-time general operatives is for an increase of £16.04 on basic pay, as applied in the Local Authorities under Clause 3 of the PESP. The Company sought productivity measures in return for the increase in pay but the Union's position was that the productivity measures sought far exceeded those conceded in the Local Authorities. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference following which agreement was not reached. The Company sought the following measures:-
(1) Cleaning of the docks by the Company's own personnel;
(2) Payment of wages by credit transfer;
(3) Completion of one overtime sheet per employee;
(4) Greater flexibility of dock gatemen;
(5) Introduction of a time-clock for outdoor staff.
The Company's position was rejected by the Union. The cleaning issue was of particular concern to the Union and the workers are strongly opposed to this measure on the grounds of health and safety. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 19th of June, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Galway, on the 9th of October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has insisted on a much higher level of productivity than that conceded by the Local Authority workers. The Harbour workers, in particular, are of the opinion that they should not be required to clean out the docks, a task which, at present, is performed by an outside contractor. The work is unpleasant and a danger to health as much of the debris that is found inside of the dock gates has been washed in there from the outflow of the untreated sewage entering Galway Bay. The workers would not be opposed, to the extent that they are now so opposed, to taking on this cleaning work in the harbour if the Harbour Company was prepared to provide a suitable purpose-made barge which would be capable of dealing, mechanically, with the debris floating in the docks.
2. There is no necessity for clocking on as the workers concerned have carried out their duties and responsibilities for years without the need to clock on. This is not a requirement in the Local Authority and was not an issue at the time of the negotiations for the payment of the £16.04 by Galway Corporation.
3. On the matter of payment of wages by credit transfer, completion of overtime sheets per shift by all employees, dock gatemen's flexibility, the workers feel that these are matters that it should be possible to agree at local negotiations. However, this has not been possible because of the Harbour Company's insistence that the cleaning of the docks and the introduction of a time-clock would also have to be part of an agreement.
4. The Galway Harbour Company workers have already suffered a considerable loss of earnings when compared with the Corporation workers and their pensions will also be considerably affected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation, which the Union is using for comparison purposes, did not get any 'real' productivity because the productivity deal was negotiated at national level with the implementation to be done by the various Local Authorities. Accordingly, the various Local Authorities were in a very poor bargaining position when it came to negotiate productivity.
2. On the issue of cleaning the docks, the workers concerned used to do this work approximately 10 -12 years ago. They have raised objections to the dirtiness of the work and while it is accepted that the work is dirty, proper equipment will be supplied and the work will only have to be carried out if and when required. In seeking to have the docks cleaned by the Company's own staff, the Company is seeking to do what other ports do. Limerick Harbour employees clean the dock which is similar to the dock in Galway.
3. Clocking-in by staff will enable the Company to confirm if staff are at work on any particular day. The completion of one overtime sheet per employee and the payment of wages by credit transfer are for the ease of administration. Greater flexibility by dock gatemen is required as, at present, there is insufficient work for them. They would be required to help out with other work, as required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court recommends that, for payment of the £16.04 claimed, the Union agree to the Company's proposed productivity measures.
The Court further recommends that, to meet the expressed health concerns, the Company initiate an examination of this factor with the assistance of a Health and Safety Officer or Environmental Health Inspector, as appropriate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
3rd November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.