FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OCEAN MANPOWER LTD (OML) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rationalisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the proposed rationalisation of the operations of OML, which is a holding company comprising Portroe Stevedores, Poolbeg Stevedores and Dublin Port Stevedores. The Company took over the running of the deep-sea section of Dublin Port following a strike and port closure in 1992. The dispute involves approximately 73 deep-sea dockers and checker operatives who are employed on a casual basis.
The Company claims that following the settlement of the dispute in 1992, terms and conditions of employment were agreed with the Unions in relation to the operation of the deep-sea section of Dublin Port. It states that it wants the 1992 agreement and the proposed new agreement adhered to and it wants an end to all current restrictive practices.
Additionally, the Company wants the flexibility to recruit employees to augment the present workforce when necessary. The Union states that its members are in disagreement with the Company's new proposals. It claims that the workers are seeking the following:-
1) a substantial increase in the retirement package for those who wish to go;
2) a guarantee of at least two days work per week for those who wish to stay;
3) that the companies make the qualifications for annual and public holidays more achievable than previously;
4) the "read" which would include any new recruits should first give priority to the established members.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th April, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th and 17th April, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of the workers concerned have up to forty years' service. Those workers should be given first preference when work becomes available.
2. Since 1992, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of work going through the port. This could not have been achieved without the co-operation and experience of the workers concerned.
3. The Company should provide a suitable redundancy package for those workers who wish to retire.
4. The 1992 Agreement provided for the introduction of a pension scheme to cover the workforce. The Company failed to bring the scheme into operation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company wishes to employ additional staff to augment the current workforce. This was provided for in the 1992 agreement.
2. There is a serious skills shortage of drivers and other operatives in the present workforce. The Company is seeking to address this situation by employing younger, trained workers.
3. The implementation of the 1992 agreement, together with the current proposals, will provide for a more flexible and efficient operation which will allow the Company to operate along the same norms as exist elsewhere in industry.
4. The Company is seeking to secure the implementation and application of an agreement, which has already been bought and paid for. The current terms on offer are generous and should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties in the course of the initial and resumed hearings to investigate this dispute. Having regard to the points put forward by both sides, the Court recommends that the current dispute be resolved on the following basis:-
Retirement Package.
The Court recommends that the employers increase their offer to those wishing to leave to £38,000 inclusive of statutory entitlements. The other conditions attaching to the offer should remain unaltered. The offer should remain open for a period of 3 months from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
Increase in Pay Rates
It is noted that the employer has offered to increase the daily rates of pay and allowances by 12% as part of this package. This increase is exclusive of the increases due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness Agreement.
Guaranteed Employment.
The employees are already covered by a guarantee of 10 (9.75) hours per week under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. In addition to this statutory entitlement each employee should receive a further average minimum entitlement of 6 hours per week, giving a total of 16 hours per week. This should be subject to the following conditions:
1.This entitlement should be averaged over a period of 12 months.
2.It should apply in respect of Monday to Saturday and be inclusive of overtime on those days.
3.It should be subject to the employee reporting for work on each normal working day throughout the year. Where an employee does not report for work on any day (excluding holidays) the entitlement should be reduced pro-rata.
4.Where the hours, as defined at 2 above, worked by an employee over the year are equal to, or greater than the minimum, no further entitlement should exist.
Public Holidays and Annual Leave.
The qualification period, which applies to the present agreed arrangements for Public Holidays should be reduced to 80 hours.
The Read.
Having regard to the safeguards inherent in the provision of a guaranteed minimum payment to all employees, together with the other concessions recommended above, the Court does not consider it necessary to introduce a restrictive read arrangement. The Court recommends that a single read, as proposed by the employers should be accepted by the Union.
Other Matters.
As part of this settlement, the Court recommends that the 1992 Agreement should be honoured in full by both parties. In addition the proposals to augment that Agreement which were put forward at the Labour Relations Commission should also be accepted and implemented.
Once-Off Payment.
The Court further recommends that, in consideration of the full implementation of this agreement, a once-off lump sum of £2,000 gross should be paid to all serving staff, excluding the new recruits. This lump-sum should be phased as follows:
•£1,000 to be paid 6 months after the implementation of this Recommendation.
•A further £1,000, to be paid 12 months after implementation.
Conclusion.
This Recommendation is intended to provide a composite response to the issues raised both by the employers and the Union in the course of the Court’s investigation. On acceptance of the Recommendation all parties should be taken to have confirmed their commitment to co-operate with each other in securing its full implementation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.