FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN STEVEDORES LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Breach of Stevedores Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between Dublin Stevedores Ltd and SIPTU/MPGWU in relation to agreed manning levels to be used by Stevedoring Companies when off loading vessels in Dublin Port. Agreement had previously been reached between the Union and the Stevedoring Companies in relation to the appropriate manning levels although one of the companies breached the Agreement by allowing the ships to "self discharge". In May 2004, employees of Dublin Stevedores Ltd were not permitted to off load a vessel on the basis that it was self discharge. This led to a dispute between Dublin Stevedores Ltd and the other Company. A temporary Agreement was put in place whereby Dublin Stevedores Ltd provided two men instead of nine, the agreed number. This continued until January 2005 when Solicitors for the other Company prevented employees of Dublin Stevedoring Ltd from discharging a vessel in the port. The Union is only prepared to provide manpower to off load vessels in compliance with the Agreement reached in July 2003 and is claiming loss of earnings for its workers since the dispute began. The Company's position is that it cannot sustain the costs of paying nine employees to off load the vessels when they themeselves have been injuncted from interfering with the working of the vessels, nor can they accept responsibility for the loss of earnings, on the basis of the injunction.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 29th November, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th March 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement reached in 2003 provides for manning levels which the company are not complying with. The result of the dispute and the fact that the Company cannot supply the agreed number of workers has meant a significant loss of earnings for the members.
2. The claim for the application of the 2003 agreement and compensation for the loss of earnings incurred as a result of the dispute is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no alternative but to continue to implement the temporary agreement until a full hearing of the dispute is held in 2007.
2. The Company cannot pay workers for work that they have not done, nor can it sustain the additional cost of paying for work that they themselves are not being paid for.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission of the parties to the dispute and has also considered the additional nformation provided at the hearing.
It is clear that an agreement was concluded betweeen the parties relating to minimum manning levels for the discharge of ships. That agreement is a valid subsisting agreement and applies to the circumstances existing in the present case. During the currency of any industrial relations agreement circumstances may arise in whch the fulfilment of the agreed terms becomes more or less onerous for one of the parties. That is not however, a basis upon which the agreed terms can be repudiated or set aside.
Accordingly the Court recommends that all parties honour the agreement on manning levels unless its terms can be voluntarily renegotiated between the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th April 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.