FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STAFFORD SHIPPING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Issue (1): Claim to work at Arcon Ltd. Issue (2): Loss of earnings due to displacement of ships. Issue (3): Work at the Ross Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the business of stevedoring, cargo handling and warehousing which is carried out at New Ross. There are 20 workers employed, of whom 3 cranemen, 1 general operator and 2 maintenance men are involved in the three claims. The Union also represents a number of casual dockers who are generally paid on a piece-rate basis.
Issue 1.
In September, 1995 the Company secured a contract with Arcon Limited for the loading of ore concentrate from New Ross. The issue in dispute is that Arcon insisted on using 2 of its own workers, one who would be responsible for the technical analysis of the moisture content of the ore, and a second worker who was a front loader driver. The Union claims that this work should be proper to Company workers.
Issue 2.
The maximum number of ships the Company can handle at one time is 4. Any ships which cannot be handled are diverted to the other side of the river. A diverted ship means that all Company facilities are in use and all Company workers are earning. However, loading the ore ships is largely automated and requires only 2 dockers. This means that if ore ships cause other ships to be diverted, not everybody will be earning. The Union wants a formula to deal with losses on a ship by ship basis.
Issue 3.
The Company recently leased a disused dry dock facility to a local community project. The project is to build a replica famine ship to be used as a tourist attraction in New Ross. The work will be carried out by people on FAS schemes. The issue in dispute is the use of a gantry which is owned by the community project. The workers regard the operation of the gantry as their work, and while they are not claiming that the gantry is exclusively theirs to use, they felt that they should have been consulted before the gantry was brought in. A major concern for the workers is that they felt the Company did not consult them before any of the changes were made. The Union is seeking a financial settlement but the Company is not agreeable.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 1st of August, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of August, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Issue 1 The Company did not consult with the Union on the contract it made with Arcon Limited. Any work done on the dockside is proper to Company workers. The 2 jobs done by the Arcon employees could have been done by 2 Company workers.
Issue 2 The Company has concluded that 3/4 ships with a combined cargo of 8,000 tons will be diverted as a result of the arrival of the ore ships. This will result in a loss of earnings for the workers. It would be unfair if the Company increased its profits as a result of the ore handling and the workers lost out.
Issue 3 The community project is a worthy one and the workers support it. However, the workers should have been advised that a gantry was being brought in. The Company may be using this situation as a precedent where outside users can bring in their own machinery or equipment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Issue 1 The Company reserves the right to dispose of its property. The Company has in the past sold/leased/rented its property to customers subject to their requirements. It is the aim of the Company to maximise business. The Union cannot claim a 'right' to this work.
Issue 2 The Company rejects any claim for an ongoing payment related to Arcon ore. It would be in breach of the Company/Union agreement. To date there has been no loss of pay due to ships being diverted. Should that happen, the Company might be prepared to make a once-off payment.
Issue 3 The Company has leased the dock site for a token rent of £1 per annum. This is by way of a contribution to the project. The gantry being used is owned by the John F. Kennedy Trust involved. The Company has no further involvement in the issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
While there are three claims before the Court it is clear that they each arose from a concern on the part of the Union's members that operations changes introduced by the Company would impact adversely on their job security and earning potential. The Court believes that those concerns were heightened by the Company's failure to fully consult with the Union or to adequately explain the basis on which the new arrangements were required.
It is, therefore, recommended that in all future cases in which change of this nature is contemplated, the Company should consult with the Union at the earliest possible opportunity and take full account of its views prior to implementation. On this basis, the Union should accept the current staffing arrangements associated with the Arcon contract.
The Court further recommends that the issues before it be resolved on the following basis:-
1. That the parties re-open negotiations on a formula for the payment of compensation, by way of lump sum, for loss of earning potential arising from the operational changes introduced as a result of the Arcon contract. These negotiations, and any resulting agreement, should be based on stated projections as to the volume of cargo likely to be diverted.
2. In the case of the FAS project at Ross Company, the Union should accept the current arrangements on the basis that, given the unique nature of this project, they do not affect the traditional prerogative of those covered by these claims to carry out work of the type now in dispute in the normal commercial operations of the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th January, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.