FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARINE TRANSPORT SERVICES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged refusal of the Company to pay severance terms to all casual dockers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Marine Transport Services is a shipping company based in Cobh, Co. Cork. It employs 26 people.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for a severance package on behalf of casual dockers. The workers concerned have been employed by the Company on a casual basis for a number of years in the lower harbour, Cobh. The company has not required the services of casual dockers since 1997.
Local level discussions took place but progress could not be made and the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 17th of December, 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 3rd of March, 1999. An invitation to attend a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission was declined by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is justified on the basis that the workers have given loyal service to the Company since 1975/1980. They performed various jobs which included the loading and unloading of cattle, coal, groceries, baggage and other ancillary work undertaken by dockers.
2. Prior to 1989, the workers were employed on a regurlar basis. This is not in question as there is information with the Department of Social Welfare which confirms that the workers "signed off" when offered employment by the Company. The work available in Cobh at that time justified the listing of thirteen casual dockers who worked an average of two and one half days per week.
3. The Company's contention that the workers were also employed by other stevedores in Cobh is refuted by the Union. The only recognised Stevedore in Cobh was Marine Transport Services. This Company was recognised by SIPTU as the sole employer of dock labour in the lower harbour area.
4. Negotiations are currently taking place on the rationalisation of "Cork Dockers". The negotiations include compensation for casual dockers, therefore, it is unacceptable for the Company to reject the notion of severance terms for a particular category of employee, when the same Company is currently discussing a similar issue for similar employees in Cork.
5. The named workers (details supplied to the Court) should be entitled to severance terms in acknowledgement of their service. The Company's argument that there is a dramatic downturn in the volume of traffic in Cobh harbour is an acknowledgement that a redundancy situation exists or has existed in recent years resulting in the elimination of work available to the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants concerned were casual workers and were required by the Company on occasion. The employment of such workers is determined purely by business levels. The Company has not required the services of the people concerned since 1997. However, the Company has not indicated that it will not require such service in the future.
2. The Company's records show that the casuals do not have service which would entitle them to statutory redundancy payments. The people concerned in this claim do not have sufficient service under the Workers Protection Regular Part-time Employees Act, 1991, to be defined as regular part-time employees with the entitlements that such a definition brings with it.
3. The Company is expected to answer a claim in relation to all casual dockers when even if they had any legal entitlements in the first place, the time limits for any claims have expired.
4. The claim by the Union that casual dockers, who have worked for the Company for a total of between 18 and 31 days from 1990 to the present, should receive severance payments is wholly unreasonable.
5. Concession of the Union's claim could have serious repercussive effects and could have significant cost implications. In addition it would be contrary to normal practice in industry. In the circumstances, the Company requests the Court to find in its favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Having considered all the information supplied, the Court, given the nature of employment and the total period worked does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd March, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.