FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - GROUP OF CRAFT UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claims by the Unions under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and "Structuring for the Future Productivity/Flexibility Agreement."
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerning 41 craftworkers arises following the completion of a comprehensive agreement with craftsmen relating to changes in work practices, reduced numbers to be employed in the Dublin Port Engineering Maintenance Section , additional training where necessary and the compensation package to be applied. The agreement provided for a reduction in numbers of craftsmen from 57 to 41 and in the supervisors from 15 to 8. The parties also agreed that the basic pay savings arising in the craft/supervisors area as a result of numbers reductions will be shared 50/50 and have agreed the amount of money in this area. The Unions, however, argue that separate to this share of savings, the Company should pay the 3% Local Bargaining Increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) in recognition of productivity involved in the agreement and should also share with craftworkers the savings achieved in other areas arising from productivity measures agreed by them, e.g. payroll savings in the general operative area arising from craftworkers' agreement to carry out work previously done by general operatives and craftworkers' agreement to work on occasion without mates. The Company maintains that the shareout of savings arising in the craft/supervisor area will result in a very substantial pay increase which is sufficient reward for the workers co-operation. It rejected the Unions' claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 29th of June, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 30th of June, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 28th of July, 1999.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the start of negotiations in 1993 it was always understood by both parties that there were two elements to the savings - straight forward payroll savings and productivity through changes in work practices. This was the understanding on which the document was negotiated. Management pointed out many times that the more that was in the document the greater the payment would be. However, in June, 1999, having seen that the payroll savings were far greater than anticipated, Management are now only prepared to pay a share of payroll savings. The craft section feel that the good faith shown by them in drawing up the completed document has not been reciprocated. The Company's own offer of February 1999 clearly acknowledges the two elements of payment when it provided figures which purported to show that the 50/50 split of payroll savings between the port and the crafts amounted to 8.35%. Management proposed a payment structure which would give an increase of 10% which was made up of the 8.35% and an element of the productivity clause under PESP, and also proposed that, as a result of further changes in work practices and re-training, there would be a further percentage increase and this percentage was to be negotiated.
2. The savings are generated in straight forward payroll savings and changes in work practices and it is generated savings, regardless of how they are achieved, which the Unions believe should be shared. The savings generated by changes in work practices are very substantial possibly even as great as the payroll savings. It would be wrong for the Company to share only one element of these savings and keep the balance.
3. The savings accruing from the reduction in numbers shared between the 41 workers gives a weekly increase of £90.78 representing a weekly increase of 30.3%. This figure is based solely on payroll savings. The workers concerned also claim a 10% increase for productivity (which productivity has been afforded since 1993) making a claim for a total wage increase of 40%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There can be no basis for an increase in excess of the agreed payroll savings. The productivity measures which have been negotiated are the reason that the Company can reduce numbers and by this very fact the sharing of the payroll savings with the craftsmen is full payment for those productivity measures.
2. Concession of the craftsmens' claim for a further increase beyond that generated by payroll savings would have serious repercussive effects in relation to other groups of workers. Negotiations have been completed with other groups on new productivity measures and the payment for this productivity which includes the 3% Local Bargaining Increase, was based on payroll savings. Reductions in payroll costs is the only basis on which the Company can fund productivity measures.
3. The sharing of payroll savings on a 50/50 basis is very reasonable as there is a continuous pressure on the Company for price reductions. A proportion of any savings which the Company may achieve will be absorbed by price reduction to customers.
4. The proposed increase to craftsmen (20% to 28.56%) is a very favourable one and represents a generous share to craftsmen of the agreed savings. The proposed pay increase generated by the agreed savings fulfils the terms of Option A, Clause 2(iii) of the PCW, 1994 and must, therefore, include the 3% Local Bargaining element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Clause 3 PESP
The Court accepts that the"Structuring for the Future"agreement is a restructuring agreement concluded under Clause 2(iii)(A) of Annex 1 of PCW. As such it is an alternative to Clause 3 of PESP and there is no basis on which an additional claim under this clause could be entertained. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Composition of Savings
The Court accepts that the savings for distribution on the agreed formula must be regarded as actual payroll savings derived from reduction in the number of craft workers. The consequential changes in work practice are intended to facilitate the reduction in numbers and cannot be a basis for additional payments.
The Court accepts, however, that additional payroll savings will probably accrue from the factors mentioned in the course of the hearing which are incapable of accurate measurement by either side. The Court recommends that these factors be taken into account by the payment of an additional 3% increase to the staff concerned in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the implementation of the Structuring for the Future Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th August, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.