FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Lashing.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute, concerning 18 workers, relates to a proposal by the Company that deck ratings employed on the M.V. " Isle of Inishmore" undertake the lashing of freight in Dublin, work which has always been carried out by dockers. Agreement has been reached with the dockers to relinquish this work as part of a rationalisation deal in 1999. That deal involved a lump sum payment to the dockers plus an improvement in pay. Deck ratings presently lash cargo at Holyhead. The Company offered to apply the lashing bonus, already applying in Holyhead, to Dublin; to improve manning by two additional deck ratings, and to give each existing deck rating on this vessel a once-off lump sum payment of £1000 gross. The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in April, May, and August 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 29th August, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 7th December, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties. On the 11th and 12th January, 2001 the Court undertook the return Dublin to Holyhead journey on the M.V. "Isle of Inishmore" and inspected the work of the claimants.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work involved is very physical and would, in effect, mean the doubling of these workers' duties in the areas of lashing and unlashing of the units.
2. The Company's offer of an extra two workers falls far short of the required manning level needed for this operation.
3. The Company's monetary offer is unacceptable given the agreement reached with dockers. The claimants must ,at the very least, be treated the same as the dockers. The rate of pay should be adjusted to reflect the extra work involved in the Dublin operation. The bonus is inadequate for the work concerned.
4. The Union understands that the MV "Inishmore" is due to be replaced on the Irish Sea as from the 17th March, 2001. The replacement MV " Ulysses " has a much larger capacity and the parties are going to have to agree new working arrangements for this ship, particularly with regard to manning levels, rates of pay, and bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current method of operation in Dublin involves the ship coming into port and being fully tied up before the dockers board the vessel and start unlashing the trucks. It is only when all trucks have been unlashed that the first vehicles can begin to disembark. This results in an unacceptable delay of between 15 and 20 minutes. Given that the vessel arrives in Dublin Port at approximately 07.00 hours, this can result in serious consequential delays due to traffic in the Dublin area. The Company's main competitor undertakes unlashing before the vessel is fully tied up, leaving Irish Ferries at a competitive disadvantage.
2. The operation of the deck department for the lashing operation at Holyhead has a crew of 18, all of whom share in the existing bonus scheme. The Company's proposal gives a crew of 20, (3 x 6 man watches + 2 Master at Arms). Two watches overlap in port during the lashing operation giving a crew of 12 available. There are no additional hours or new duties involved. The current bonus scheme yields approximately £800-£900 p.a. The implications for the Company extending the bonus to Dublin Port would, in effect, double this figure. The starting point of the bonus needs to be reviewed when the new MV "Ulysses" comes into operation next Spring.
3. Having all lashing done on board the ship is essential in order to respond to customer demand. It is also the most effective method operationally, and is cost effective.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has examined all aspects of this case; this included a work inspection on board covering a round trip between Dublin and Holyhead. This included the two occasions when the vessel arrived in Dublin Port, and the unloading and loading at Holyhead. In regard to the company claim that the facility to unlash vehicles prior to docking is of commercial necessity, the Court is satisfied that this is justified.
Having observed the actual operation involved in lashing and unlashing the Court can understand the reluctance of the seamen to undertake the additional work involved. Therefore the Court recommends that upon acceptance the parties should make every effort to devise a system to ensure an equal distribution of this work over the number of ratings involved, so as to minimise the number of occasions that each rating will be required to carry out this work.
Taking into account that this matter has been outstanding for quite a number of years and that very little actual negotiation has taken place, the Court recommends as follows:
As the new vessel is due to come into service in the next few weeks and will have a greater capacity than the present vessel, the number of additional crew should be initially increased by five on it, to be reviewed in six months to establish whether this additional number is actually required for the operation of the new ship.
The new crew, together with the existing lashing crew already on board for the operation at Holyhead, should, as proposed by the company, be integrated into the total deck complement of the vessel and all should be involved in the lashing/unlashing operation at both Holyhead and Dublin.
The Court recommends that on the successful introduction of the operation of lashing/unlashing in Dublin the following bonus scheme should be introduced, replacing that presently in operation:
Number of Units Payment per Unit Carried
First 35 units 0.5p
Next 30 units 0.10p
Next 25 units 0.15p
Thereafter 0.20p
It is the intention of the Court that this proposed bonus will significantly increase the current level of the bonus paid. The proposed bonus should be calculated on the number of units carried per trip. This will be based on the Freight Manifest ex Dublin or Holyhead calculated over the week that the crew are rostered on and will be on an individual basis. It will be noted that this includes payment from the first unit and not from the 46th unit as under the old scheme.
The parties should meet to consider whether this payment per person should be made on a quarterly basis and not on an annual basis as present.
On acceptance of this recommendation and on its implementation, a lump sum of £5000 per Rating should be paid.
This recommendation covers the existing and new vessels on the Dublin/Holyhead route and is not intended to apply to the Rosslare route.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th January, 2001______________________
TOD/TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.