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 DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Breach of agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 2001, the parties concluded an agreement on the restructuring of the clerical and administrative staff in the Company. A letter from the Company to the Union on the 12th of July, 2001, contained the following clause:-
"On acceptance of the terms of this agreement Dublin Port Company agrees to: (i) Promote two officers to the Grade of Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) with full consequential promotions from the date of acceptance of this agreement".
However, in November, 2001, management advised that all promotions were on hold pending completion of job evaluation and a skills audit. In the event, management decided against all promotions that were not strictly required, and the 2 SAO promotions did not take place. Had the 2 SAO promotions gone ahead there would have been a further 6 consequential promotions.
The Union's case is that the Company breached the agreement of July, 2001. Management argues that it must reduce numbers and costs, and a strategic plan for years 2002 - 2004 has been approved which aims to do this. At the hearing, the Company supplied a list of financial difficulties facing it. 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 8th of March, 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.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in clear breach of the comprehensive agreement signed in July, 2001. The issue of promotion was, and is, an integral part of the agreement.
2. The agreement provides for a major reduction in the number of clerical and administrative personnel - from 66 to 50. This will allow the Company to significantly reduce the cost base relating to the section and make the Company more competitive.
3. The workers have continued to honour all clauses of the agreement in full. They are concerned at the impact on the Industrial Relations culture in the Company if management can break an agreement within months of making it.
4. Company arguments such as needing sufficient funds for the pension scheme and having to exit crane services are not new. This was known well in advance of the July, 2001, agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has had to defer one minor element of a set of major rewards to the employees. Promotional outlets are already generous. The Company's request for moderation at this time is reasonable.
2. Wages and salary levels are very good, with the average salary level in 2001 being €53,330 per annum for employees. Payroll costs 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.
3. The Union has agreed with the Company that there is a need to reduce numbers from 360 to 271. Staffing levels are unsustainable compared to other ports of the size and complexity of the Company. The Company proposed a voluntary early retirement package among certain categories of staff but the uptake has fallen far short of what was expected.
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 in dispute were agreed without an examination of the need for them. They were to be a "once-off" and not part of the permanent establishment.
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 met 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/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.