FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PORTROE STEVEDORING LIMITED DUBLIN PORT STEVEDORES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (MPGWU BRANCH) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Implementation of 2003 Agreement as it applies to availability of work for casual workers. Compensation for alleged losses of earnings therefrom.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following four years of negotiations an Agreement was reached in May 2003 between the two remaining constituent companies of the Labour Supply Company called Ocean Manpower Limited (OML) and the MPGWU branch of SIPTU. The Agreement was ratified at the end of July, 2003 Under the terms of the Agreement a number of redundancies took place. When the new Agreement came into being on the 1st August, 2003 the only previous Dockers remaining were two OML, 1992 (Ex Dublin Cargo Handling), now employed with Portroe and five workers recruited directly by OML in 2000, now employed with Dublin Port. The dispute concerns the interpretation and implementation of the 2003 Agreement as it applies to availability of work for the 7 workers concerned and compensation for alleged loss of earnings.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th May, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th May, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Companies agreed to utilise their permanent workforce "dockers/checkers, foremen" and they would supplement this with current casual workforce made up of ex OML employees and new employees. They further confirm that if additional labour was required they would request the services of the 2 OML 1992 workers. Despite their undertaking, the Company has employed third party contractors rather than utilise the services of 2 OML workers who are proficient in the operation of all pieces of equipment in the dock area.
2.The Companies interpretation, that clause 1.3 of the 2003 Agreement gave them the absolute right to employ all or any category of worker to operate as dockers, checkers or foremen, before being obliged to utilise the seven casual staff who transferred from OML. This interpretation by the Companies would nullify in total this agreement. It would further have the affect of undermining the integrity and the employment rights of the permanent staff employed by these companies. The Union cannot accept this position being imposed on workers or the Union.
3.Dublin Port Company has offered to put forward the five ex OML workers for assessment in the same manner as new employees. To date no such training programme has been given to the five workers despite the undertaking by the Company in October 2003. On two occasions the workers have been called for assessment without first being given the training necessary to develop skills.
COMPANIES' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both Companies have kept faith with the agreement between the Union and Employees i.e. ratio of 1-3 of work organisation. The Union disputes part of the clause (referring to 'sub contract' as necessary).
2. The Company have the right to select workers subject to skills and the principle of the strict rotation.
3. Both Companies have proposed that when they require labour and when all their own casual men are employed they would employ any of the other company's casual men available for work, depending on the workers skills.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties and has examined the relevant provisions of the agreement of 27th July, 2003.
That agreement was intended to introduce radical changes in established work practices within the port including changes in the recruitment and deployment of staff. It is, however, apparent that the parties were at cross purposes to some degree in their negotiations in that they now have significantly different understandings of what key provisions of the agreement were intended to mean.
Having examined those provisions the Court finds that there are ambiguities and a certain lack of clarity in the language used. This is further compounded by the fact that while one Company effectively provides the two employees who transferred from OML with priority in selection for casual work the other Company does not.
It seems that the core difficulty in the present case arises from the employers' claim that the transferred employees lack the necessary skills to perform the full range of functions required of them. For its part the Union contends that if these individuals lack skills it is because they have not been trained.
Having regard to the uncertainty as to the detail of what was agreed between the parties the Court recommends that the current dispute be resolved on the following basis:
- 1. The Company have full flexibility in the development of permanent staff,
2. The individuals associated with this claim who require it should be provided with comprehensive training in all necessary skills. This training should be completed within one month of the date of this recommendation. Following the training the individuals should be assessed by an independent assessor and the report of the assessment provided to both Companies and to the Union.
- 4. Should any of the individuals fail to obtain skills certification to the required standard, the parties should negotiate a severance package for those individuals. Should they fail to agree on the terms of such a package the matter may be referred back to the Court.
This recommendation is made having regard to the special circumstances of those who transferred from OML and is not intended to have any wider implication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th May, 2004______________________
JB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.