FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MARINE TERMINALS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Restructuring
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a stevedoring company, offering containerised stevedoring services to owned ships and third-party shipping lines in the port of Dublin. In 1999 the Company commenced negotiations with the Union in relation to the implementation of suitable work rosters. This was necessary in relation to the future needs of the business. Up to that time staff worked days only with all evening, night and weekend work covered by overtime.
By August 2000 negotiations had reached an impasse. Over the following years and up to January 2007 a total of five conciliation conferences took place. Following a meeting in December 2006 the Company believed that the €2,000 increase in basic pay proposed by the Union was to cover all issues in dispute. The Union position was that the €2,000 did not account for all changes required by the Company and it sought an increase in basic pay of €3,000 retrospective to January 2006 for all issues.
A meeting of the workforce took place on 11th February 2007 at which the Company's proposal was rejected. At a further local meeting on the 13th February 2007 the Union position changed again and they sought an increase of €10,200 to basic salary.
The Company amended its proposal by applying a further increase to basic of €500 on 1 April 2009, thus representing an overall increase in basic salary of €3,500 for the introduction of the shift. The Union then proposed an increase of €6,000 on basic pay on a phased basis with an immediate lump sum payment of €3,000 and three further payments of €1,000.
The dispute before the Court relates to the amount of payment to be made to the staff in return for a restructuring programme which was agreed in principle over the course of the five conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th March, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2007.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company position that the 'Back to Work' Agreement of 2000 and the settlement payment of €5,000 provided for 'adopting the new working system, which applies to the terminal as it is presently equipped and as it will be equipped in the future'.
2. The Company maintain that over many years it has attempted to negotiate in good faith with the Union to implement appropriate shift cover for weekend work.
3. The Company contend that it has proposed a very fair and reasonable compensation payment for the reduction in weekend overtime earnings and the buy-out of the day off in lieu, by increasing basic pay by €3,500 per annum.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union are seeking to have their members claim for a basic salary increase dealt with before they will accept changes that they see as purely Company agenda.
2. The issue of a container bonus must also be dealt with as it has been touted many times. The original proposal came from Management but no attempt has been made to construct it.
3. The proposed changes to the structure of the night shift and the introduction of the "Mini shift" is a matter of great concern which the Union contend will greatly decrease the members' potential to earn overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the monetary element of the Company’s proposals to crane drivers, shift managers and maintenance staff in return for the Company’s restructuring programme. The full details of the proposals dated, 16th February 2007 were submitted to the Court.
The Union gave details to the Court of a longstanding pay relativity claim for the crane drivers.
Following lengthy discussions at the Labour Relations Commission, agreement in principle was reached on the new restructuring programme; however, the Union rejected the monetary elements of the proposals and sought a substantial increase in basic pay and the introduction of a container bonus (throughput bonus).
Included in the Company’s proposals was a reference to discussions on the claimed throughput bonus. However, the Company was not prepared to consider any increase in the offer made coupled with the introduction of a bonus and stated that its offer took this position into account.
Having examined the Company’s restructuring needs and taking account of the Union’s position as outlined in the oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the monetary elements of the Company’s proposals of 16th February 2007 should be improved, as follows:
A. An increase in basic salary of €4000 for all employees affected by the changes listed above at the change date.
B. A further increase of €500 in basic salary per employee affected on 1st April 2008.
C. A further increase of €500 in basic salary per employee affected on 1st April 2009.
The Court recommends that all other elements of the 16th February 2007 proposals should remain unchanged, the discussions with Union representatives regarding a throughput bonus, should continue, however, the Union needs to be mindful of the Company’s position that “it is unlikely to be of significant value”.
The Court recommends that the proposals should be amended to include the recommended improvements and should be accepted in full and final settlement of all claims referred to in the Union’s submission to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd June, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.