FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation of proposal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates 3 tugboats which provide towage services within Dublin Port. There are 4 tug engineers involved in the claim. In 2000, craft workers on the maintenance and service section concluded an agreement (Structuring for the Future), which allowed for pay increases of up to 28% in return for multi-skilling, flexibility measures and a reduction in numbers. Following this, the 4 tug engineers made a claim for a pro-rata increase based on a long-standing relationship they maintained over the craft workers. The Company rejected the claim, stating that the tug engineers would have to enter into productivity discussions.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a proposal issued on the 2nd of March, 2001, as follows:
That the parties agree to engage in discussions immediately on an agenda which incorporates Structuring for the Future for Tug Engineers.
As an interim agreement the Port agree to pay 10.25% to Tug Engineers W.E.F. 1st March, 2000. This payment to be acknowledged and taken account of as part of any final pay agreement. The final agreement on application dates will be agreed as part of any overall agreement.
Following the LRC proposal, the Union claims that the Company made retrospective payments to other categories of workers, and that in correspondence dated the 17th of September, 2001, it proposed to make the retrospective payment to the tug engineers effective from the 1st of October, 1998, rather than the 1st of March, 2000. The Union's claim is that, despite the agreement of March, 2001, no payment has been made to the tug engineers. The Company's case is that, following a decision taken at Board level, it was not appropriate to make the payments in advance of discussions on "Structuring for the Future for the Tug Engineers". The issue was referred back to the LRC. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of September, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The LRC proposal of March, 2001, stated that a 10.25% payment would be made as an interim agreement. There were no preconditions on talks having to take place first.
2. The Company has refused to honour the agreement as it has refused to honour similar agreement e.g. LCR 17130 and LCR 17131.
3. The Union has done all it can to progress the matter on behalf of its members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been unable to get the Union into discussion on the matter. At one stage it was told by the Union that the proposal had been rejected.
2. The decision not to pay the money without talks taking place first was made at Board level. The Board instructed management to achieve large-scale cost reductions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company accepts that it entered into an agreement with the Union in September, 2001, by which it committed to paying an interim increase of 10.25% backdated to the 1st of October 1998. In return, the Union committed to entering immediate discussions on restructuring of tug crewing. Subsequently, the Board of the Company decided that interim payments of this nature should not be paid.
It is clear that the parties freely negotiated and concluded a binding industrial relations agreement on the matters now in dispute. The subsequent decision of the Board could not operate to unilaterally revoke that agreement or to relieve the Company from the obligations to which it was committed under the agreement.
The Union, for its part, was committed to discussions on restructuring of tug crewing. Whilst the parties failed to agree in subsequent local discussion, that should not be regarded as the end of the matter. Where local negotiations break down, parties are expected to proceed to the next stage in their disputes procedure, including reference of the issues to the LRC and ultimately to the Court.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends as follows:
- The Company should honour the terms of the agreement which it made with the Union in September, 2001, and pay an interim increase of 10% retrospective to the 1st of October, 1998.
- The parties should immediately resume discussions on "Structure for the Future for Tug Crews". If agreement is not reached in local discussions, the dispute should be jointly referred to the LRC for conciliation and, if necessary, to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.