FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (a) Outsourcing (b) payment on return to work - 6 days' pay, bed & breakfast charge, annual bonus, safety cover payments, Benchmarking compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company operates ferry services between Dublin/Rosslare and the U.K., and between Rosslare and France. The French route operates between March and November/December each year on the ferryship 'M.V. Normandy'. The Union represents Marine Officers aboard all the Company's ships, and some Ratings and some Pursers on the U.K.routes.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's proposals to achieve viability in the operation of its Ireland/France service. In October 2004 the Company informed the Union that, arising from a review of its French route it wished to outsource the crewing of the Normandy. The Union indicated that it would not accept the outsourcing of Officers, Pursers and Ratings on the Normandy but it would consider major cuts in current cost covering all grades. Following 'exploratory' talks the Company estimated that savings in the region of €5.55m to €6.35m, to include outsourcing , could be made.
In December 2004 a work stoppage took place. Ratings due to be relieved on the 9th December, 2004 chose to remain on a vessel, in Holyhead. Following the work stoppage a number of issues arose which remain to be resolved. These concern a) payment on return to work, b) 6 days' pay, c) bed and breakfast charge, d) annual bonus, e) safety cover payment and f) Benchmarking compensation.
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 26th January, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th February, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is totally opposed to outsourcing the employment of officers on the Normandy.
2. The Union is willing to proactively engage with the Company in an effort to address cost issues and has clearly demonstrated that it is prepared to agree substantial savings on the French corridor which makes the service viable.
3. The Marine Officers are also prepared to agree the introduction of On Board Management which will lead to extended savings on the other routes.
4. The work stoppage in December 2004 occurred as the Company cancelled all sailings without notice. The Union seeks to have those members who worked through the dispute paid and not charged B & B for the period. The Union are also requesting that all other payments due to members be paid immediately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contend that it can generate savings of €6.55m by outsourcing and engaging a Ship Management Agency to provide crews for the French service.
2. Outsourcing is now commonplace within the shipping industry internationally and the introduction of this policy will enable the route to remain viable and eliminate ongoing losses.
3. The Company is agreeable to the use of Consultant(s) to examine the current business case for the Irish Sea.
4. As a result of the work stoppage and the ratings due to be relieved remaining on board out of roster the Company incurred expenses for bed and breakfast which it seeks to recover. Furthermore the Company is not willing to pay safety cover to those officers who remained on the ship during the work stoppage.
5. The annual bonus paid to Officers is based on an agreement to mainten and adhere to Industrial Relations procedures. The work stoppage was a breach of this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ship Management Contract
This dispute concerns proposals by the Company to achieve viability in the operation of its Ireland/France service. It came before the Court against the background of intensive negotiations at the LRC, industrial action which resulted in a cancellation of the Company's services and an intervention by the National Implementation Body. Following a statement issued by the NIB on 15th December 2004, which was accepted by all parties, it was agreed that all options to achieve the viable operation of the service would be explored without precondition.
The Company contend that it can generate savings of €6.55m by engaging a Ship Management Agency to provide crews for its vessel operating the service. The Union, for its part, is opposed to outsourcing and have proposed significant changes in working conditions and practices which would make the route viable. It says that what is proposed by the Company goes beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective.
The Court notes that the type of arrangements proposed by the Company are now commonplace within the shipping industry internationally. It is also noted that the majority of the crew of the vessel have accepted voluntary severance from the company or have accepted redeployment.
However, having carefully considered the financial information with which it was provided, the Court is satisfied that, in the cases of Deck and Engine Officers, the savings likely to be achieved, when viewed in their overall context, are not so significant as to require the outsourcing of this aspect of the service at this time.
The Court recommends that the Company should continue to directly employ Deck and Engine Officers, on the terms proposed by the Union, and that the position be reviewed at the end of the current season. In this review all relevant considerations should be taken into account including the operational efficiency of this arrangement and the extent to which the savings projected by the Union's proposals are realised.
Irish Sea Route
In its submission to the Court the Company referred to the need to further review what it described as the business case for maintaining its Irish Sea service arising from loss of business on that route. The Court recommends that such a review should be jointly conducted with the relevant unions and that it should involve agreed independent consultants.
Issues Arising from Work Stoppage
Bed and Breakfast Charges
The Court recommends that the Company should not pursue its stated intention to recoup bed and breakfast costs from those who remained on board ship during the work stoppage of December 2004.
Annual Bonus - Officers
The Court accepts that the industrial action occurred after 28th October 2004 and therefore outside the reference period for determining eligibility to payment of the annual bonus in respect of the year 2003/2004. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the bonus be paid for that year, but dealt with in the year 2004/2005.
Claim for Payment on Return to Work
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim for Payment of 6 Days Pay
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Safety Cover
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Benchmarking Compensation Agreement
The Court recommends that the two temporary officers should be included in the division of the compensation due for the reduction in crewing levels.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th February, 2005______________________
MG/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.