FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STENA LINE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Re-structuring.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 23 Port Services Assistants (PSA's) who are employed by Stena Line and the Company's proposal to re-structure its Dun Laoghaire Port operations. The Company propose a reduction in numbers from the current complement of 23 PSA's to 18 through a programme of voluntary redundancy or natural wastage. The Company have offered 2 weeks per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement, plus a lump sum of €5,000, which they have agreed to increase to €6,000, changes to the current rostering arrangement's from 4 days on/4 off to 4 days on/2 off, the removal of the night shift and a change to the start/finish times now to be 08.30 to 22.30, a reduction in shift premium from 25% to 20%, an agreement on additional sailings (which arise irregularly). The Union are seeking access to training in the new reservations systems in the port for the PSA's.
The Union argue that the agreed complement of PSA's is 32 (Agreement 1993) and that the company have arrived at the current actual complement of 24 through a breach of the agreement. The Company rejects that they have breach that agreement.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. During conciliation a number of the proposals were agreed on. The Company agreed to 'red circle' the 25% shift premium to current serving staff with a 20% premium for new staff, the Union agreed to this. The Company would be agreeable to the withdrawal of its 4 day on/2 day off roster proposal and leaving the original roster in place. The main sticking points are voluntary redundancy terms, and an agreement on additional sailings (outside the schedule) As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th January, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The workers have a long and loyal service to the Company. There are both pre 1993 and post 1993 employees.
2. The Company while operating on two thirds of a full compliment have made major cost savings. The Union are seeking compensation (loyalty payment) for workers to carry this staffing shortfall.
3. The redundancy package negotiated in the future mustat leastuse the formula of the 1993 Agreement.
4. Extra sailings are a feature in the Summer schedule. The Union are seeking compensation in the form of overtime payments with a clear established formula which is applied across the board to Union members.
5. The Company's intransigence with regard to agreements has frustrated efforts to resolve this matter.
6. As far back as 30th March, 2000, the Company attempted to break agreements by stealth by attempting to force change through, again not adhering to Agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management are satisfied following in-dept examination of the working practices, staff numbers, rostering arrangements and the new operational requirements in the port that the proposals dated the 3rd July 2003 are a fair and balanced response to the needs of the Company.
2. The Dun Laoghaire Port is substantially over manned and that an establishment of 18, will more than meet the Company's requirements.
3. The Company has advised that any redundancies arising from the proposals will be on a voluntary basis and that the overall terms on offer are competitive.
4. If compensation is awarded to this Group it will add further losses to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute concerns the Company’s proposals on restructuring Port Services Assistant grade (PSA) employed in Dun Laoghaire Port. The Union sought an improvement in the terms of the proposals offered on 3rd July 2003.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Company’s proposals should be amended by the following recommendations :-
Redundancy Terms
The Court recommends that the Company’s redundancy terms should be increased from two weeks pay per year of service, to three weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlement, to take account of the new increased statutory entitlements, which apply since the last redundancy package was available in the company in February 2002.
The Court notes that the Company have offered to pay “an ex-gratia enhancement lump sum” of €6000. This should also apply to the redundancy terms.
Rosters
The Court notes that the Company are agreeable to continue the roster on the basis of 4 days on and 4 days off and are not, at this time, seeking 4 days on and 2 days off, as originally proposed. The Court notes that the Union are willing to accept the change in hours sought by the company, to coincide with the operational needs – 08.30 to 22.30 hours.
Shift Premium
The Court notes that at the hearing both sides agreed to the continuation of the shift premium of 25% for those operatives currently employed and to apply a premium of 20% to all new recruits to the PSA grade.
Extra Sailings
The company confirmed to the Court that if more than three sailings are required per day on a regular basis, that discussion would take place between the parties on the introduction of revised rostering arrangements. It is on the basis of that assurance, that the Court hereby recommends that the same deal as agreed with the clerical staff should apply to this grade affected by the Company’s need to have extra sailings on occasions.
‘Loyalty Payment’
The Court recommends that in return for acceptance of this package, those staff remaining should be paid a lump sum of €1000 for their co-operation with the restructuring required.
Conclusion
The Court recommends that the company’s restructuring proposals dated 3rd July 2003 as amended by the above recommendations, including the proposed reduction in manning level of PSA operatives to 18, should be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite package in full and final settlement of all issues referred to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th_April, 2004______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.