FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS GENERAL MUNICIPAL BOILERMAKERS UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Training on Tug Operation and other related matters
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Dublin Port Company and the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) and the General Municipal Biolermakers Union (GMBU) in relation to the manning and rostering of the Company's sea going tugs, the issue of
shore based technicians, the suspension of workers on the basis of their alleged refusal to participate in the manning of the tugs and a request for an audit of all existing agreements within the Company.
The Union's position on the manning and rostering of the tugs is that the Company are seeking to have shore based personnel manning the tugs in the event of an absence of a qualified person on board and are using the New Working Model for Technical Supervisors and Craftsmen agreement concluded in 2006 and relevant pay increases to implemet this unagreed practice. The Union also contend that the Company has not consulted with all relevant Unions in relation to this issue.
The Company's position is that in the event of an emergency or absence it may be necessary for shore based technicians to perform engine room duties only but they would not be required to work on deck. The Company also pointed out that these personnel would be in addition to the normal tug crew and that futher negotiations would include all relevant Unions.
The parties are also in dispute in relation to an interpretation of the 2006 Agreement concerning the shore based technicians and subsequent suspensions that have occurred as a result of Union members not complying with what was perceived as a unilateral move by management in relation to manning levels. The Union is also seeking an audit of all existing agreements in the Company to prevent a recurrence of such events.
The dispute could not settled 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 7th February, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Maintenance and Services Department staff are shore based staff and management cannot compel them to supplement manning levels on the sea going tugs.
2It is unacceptable that shore based technicians be forced to carry out work on tugs that they were not trained to do and that had not been agreed with the relevant Trade Unions. There are also concerns that these workers will be required to work on deck which will have serious safety implications.
3 The workers who refused to man the tugs under the Company's "training and familiarisation programme" were suspended without pay. The suspensions ranged from five days to two weeks. These suspensions were a breach of contract and should be removed from the employees record and all unpaid wages reimbursed to the workers.
4 An audit by the Advisory Development and Research Service (ADRS) of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) of all agreements existing in the Company,
and any suggestions arising from the audit, would greatly assist the parties in creating a more positive and trusting working environment for the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company requested the shore base technicians to attend on board the tugs for familiarisation only. It never intended that these workers would supplement tug crews going forward. The Agreement concluded in 2006 allows for the carrying out of such duties where adequate training has been given and where there are no safety risks to staff.
2 The Company require the technicians on the tugs to perform engine room duties only when absolutely necessary and they would not be required to perform deck duties. These personnel would be in addition to the ageed tug manning levels of Master, Masters Mate and Engine Room Operative.
3 Local management met with staff to discuss concerns in relation to the disputed issues and despite their best efforts, the workers refused to co-operate and take up familiarisation and training. They were subsequently suspended from duty.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and Unions representing the Maintenance and Services Department, following an agreement reached on a New Working Model for Technical Supervisors and Craftsmen in 2006. The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, on thefour claims submitted by the Unions:
The Sea-Going Tugs
The Unions contended that the nemesis of the dispute before the Court concerns an agreement reached in 2003 covering change in the operations of the Company’s three sea-going tugs. They are of the view that the main problem on the tugs is the question of manning and rostering of the tug crews and ask the Court to recommend that the Company engage on this matter with all the parties concerned (SIPTU, SUI, TEEU).
The Unions main concerns arises from the belief that the Company are expecting the Maintenance and Services Department personnel to supplement or replace the manning levels on the sea-going tugs and are doing so under the auspices of the New Working Model for Technical Supervisors and Craftsmen Agreement 2006.
At the hearing, the Company made it very clear to the Court that it was actively engaged in discussions on the manning and rostering of tug crews with SIPTU and SUI,
and indicated their commitment to include TEEU in those discussions. Furthermore, the Company gave assurances that it was not seeking to include personnel from the Maintenance and Services Department on the crewing rosters for the sea-going tugs and stated that such personnel would not be required to operate on deck. However, it required the shift Technicians to assist in the case of an emergency, to carry out engine room duties only e.g. where there is engine failure or in the absence of the rostered person assigned to start the engine. In such circumstances, the shift Technician called upon would be additional to the normal Tug Crew numbers. The Company specified that the normal Tug Crew comprised of a Master, Master’s Mate and an Engine Room Operative.
On the basis of the assurances given by the Company on this issue at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that the ongoing discussions on the manning/rostering of Tug Crews, and the inclusion of TEEU in those discussions will address this part of the Unions claims. The Court recommends accordingly.
Shore Based Technicians
The Unions seek an interpretation of the 2006 Agreement, as to whether or not the Agreement allows the Company to seek Shore Based Technicians to supplement Tug Crews into the future. The Unions were of the view that on 12th January 2007, the Company had attempted to force shore-based technicians to man the tugs when it instructed two technicians to carry out a new duty at sea. The Unions were of the view that the instruction to their members to man the tugs was made “under the guise oftraining and familiarisation”, which was never discussed or agreed.
The Company categorically denied that it was asking the Technicians to supplement Tug Crews into the future. Instead it stated that on 12th January 2007, it instructed the two shift Technicians to attend for familiarisation duties onboard the tug in order to ensure their availability to assist in providing engineering services and emergency engine room cover. Training would commence following a familiarisation process by the staff concerned.
The Company stated that the terms of the 2006 Agreement provided for craft personnel to perform all duties assigned to them by management subject only to an overriding commitment that they be trained to do so and it was safe. A major element of the new agreement was the introduction of a ten member self relieving shift system designed to provide cover on a 24 hour/7 days per week/365 days per year basis; to cover customer needs on a round the clock basis along with facilitating planned maintenance.
The Company stated that the familiarisation/training duties required on 12th January 2007, were covered by the Agreement, whereby technicians on shift would be required to become familiar with onboard safety and basic engine room procedures and to observe the engine room function in real time during a towage operation. It stressed that they were not being required for rostered manning crew duties on board the tugs.
The Court notes that the New Working Model for Maintenance and Services Department Agreement completed and signed by both parties in 2006 is a very comprehensive agreement on a new way of working for craftsmen and supervisors,
to include a flexible work arrangement requiring all staff to perform tasks for which they have been trained. It provided for a reclassification of craftsmen and supervisors henceforth to be classified as Maintenance Technicians and Supervisors/Overseers/Facilitators/Auditors respectively.
Among its objectives it outlined the following:
-“The acceptance of a completely new way of working and reward system;
-“Acknowledgement by employees and acceptance of the fact that they will carry out all tasks that they have been trained to do, regardless of previous practice;”
Moreover, it was designed to eliminate
-“All demarcation within and between groups/grades subject to the maintenance of Health & Safety best practice.”
Under the heading Introduction of Shift Working, the agreement states that
-“Shift teams will have a complement of skills and knowledge to deal with any eventuality that may arise to meet customer requirements”.
Among the matters listed to measure the success of the agreement will be:
-“The provision of a quality customer focused maintenance service and its measurement through customer survey and complaints.”
Having considered the issues raised by the parties and having examined the contents of the Agreement, the Court concurs with the Company’s interpretation, that the Maintenance and Services Department personnel must engage in the familiarisation/training as requested by management in order to provide engineering services for emergency engine room cover on board the Company tug boat service, when required to do so by management. The Court understands that this is strictly on the basis that the Maintenance and Services Department personnel are not supplementing any member of the rostered Tug Crew and that such assistance should only be required on an infrequent basis.
Loss of Pay Due To Suspension
The Unions informed the Court that nine of their members were suspended without pay by the Company for periods of between five and ten days over their refusal to participate in the manning of the tugs. They maintained that the suspension of the workers was a breach of their contract of employment.
Having examined the situation, which gave rise to the suspensions, the Court is of the view that due to a lack of trust between the parties, a misinterpretation has arisen concerning the nature of the Company’s requirements on 12th January 2007.
Furthermore, it is of the view that the lack of consultation/notification regarding the requirement for the two Technicians to attend familiarisations duties onboard the tug on 12th January 2007 was a contributing factor to the events, which ensued. The Court accepts that the methodology for communicating this new duty coupled with its timing were not conducive to the establishment of a non-adversarial environment, as envisaged by the 2006 Agreement. The Court can understand the Unions’ concerns and accepts that the instructions on the night in question gave the impression that the Technicians were being required to familiarise themselves with the tugs in order to become part of the rostered crew.
The Company pointed out that at a meeting held on 19th January 2007, the situation was clarified for the Unions; however, the Court is of the view that it may have been too late at that stage to clear any mistaken impression formed.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the loss of pay incurred by the nine workers should be re-imbursed and the suspensions expunged from their Personnel records.
Audit of All Existing Agreements
The Unions sought an audit of all existing agreements by the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission, who should also be requested to suggest mechanism to prevent the reoccurrence of such disputes at Dublin Port.
The Court notes that the discussions on the manning of the sea-going tugs had not been completed at this time and therefore, any existing agreement on this issue is open to change.
The Court is of the view that there are sufficient safeguards within the terms of the 2006 Agreement to deal with the application and implementation of its terms and to deal with any issues, which emerge.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th June 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.