FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Breach of agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 2 sets of workers employed by the Company - one in the river section and one in the general operatives area. In 2001, the parties reached agreement in respect of a number of categories of workers. The Unions' claim is that the Company has refused to honour the agreement in regard to the following: two (originally three) employees were to be promoted to the grade of Skipper Split 1, one employee was to be promoted to Relief Skipper Split 1, and a seaman on contract in the River Section was to be offered full-time employment. There is also an issue of compensation for loss of earnings for 2 workers arising from the loss of overtime/allowances. The Unions quote a letter of 22nd of August, 2001, in which all of the above were agreed to. The Company's argument is that it has to reduce numbers and costs if it is to remain competitive. A strategic plan for years 2002 - 2004 which aims to achieve this has been approved by the Board of Management. At the hearing, the Company supplied a list of the financial difficulties facing it. The Company further argues that it cannot agree to promotions at present unless there is an absolute need for them.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of April, 2002.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in clear breach of the agreement of August, 2001.
2. Discussions on these promotions have been ongoing since 1995. The Company cannot now claim that it did not examine the issue in detail.
3. The loss to the workers concerned would be considerable (details supplied to the Court). The worker who was on contract secured a mortgage in the belief that he was to be made permanent.
4. The Unions are very concerned that the Company can break an agreement so soon after making it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement of 2001 provided for cumulative pay increases of 28%. This was in addition to all increases paid under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. The Unions have accepted that there is a need to reduce staff numbers from 360 to 271. The Company needs to defer the promotions until the financial position of the Company improves.
3. Concession of the claim will add considerably to the overall payroll costs which already account for 75% of all Company costs. To add further to the payroll costs would be irresponsible and could force the Company to consider compulsory redundancies.
4. A number of recent independent reports are highly critical of costs at the Port.
5. Operating margins have fallen from 45% in 1998 to below 26% in 2001.
6. The Company has been forced to exit crane services because of the mounting losses and industrial relations problems in the immediate past.
7. The events of September 11th, 2001, in America have accelerated the downturn in the economic activity in the country.
8. The Company has made every effort to communicate the gravity of the situation to all of the staff and their representatives.
9. The promotions were agreed to without a formal examination of the needs for the posts. They are the only elements of the agreement which are outstanding.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the position of both sides to this dispute. The Company has pointed out to the Court that as the port is facing a challenging and uncertain future, the Company must reduce its costs and numbers employed if it is to remain competitive and meet its targets.
The issue referred to the Court concerns the Company's breach of an agreement entered into and signed by both parties. The Court recommends that this agreement should be honoured and implemented in full by the Company.
Furthermore, the Court strongly recommends that the parties should immediately enter into discussions on the Strategic Plan put forward by management; every effort must be made by both parties to jointly discuss how costs will be reduced.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th April, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.