FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Interpretation of 2003 Agreement and matters arising therefrom.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute in relation to an agreement reached between the parties in 2003 concernng the appropriate duties for the Marine Port Operatives employed by the Company. In August 2007, five workers were instucted to report for familiarisation and training on board two of the Company's vessels. The men declined to attend and were subsequently suspended from duty.
The Union's positin is that the request was in breach of the provisions of the "Structuring for the Future" Agreement concluded in December, 2003. Management's position is that it has paid for co-operation and flexibility in the form of pay increases on foot of such agreements and must exercise its right to manage its business as it deems appropriate. Management further contends that the Union involved in this case does not have representation and negotiation rights for this group of workers, a matter which it claimed is the subject of an inter-union dispute currently being dealt with by the disputes committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. (ICTU)
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court on 30th August, 2007 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th September, 2007
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management requested the workers to engage in a role that was not appropriate for them. The request was not in line with the provisions of the "Structuring for the Future" agreement concluded between the parties in December 2003.
2 The workers also had Health and Safety concerns about taking on unagreed roles that they had not previously trained in.
3 The workers, at all times, complied with agreed practices and procedures in relation to their positions. It is unacceptable that they be suspended without pay as a result. The claim for the retrospective payment of earnings lost while on suspension is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating in extremely competitive environment and must use all staff to their full potential in line with the needs of the business. Agreements concluded with the Trade Unions previously provided for such flexibility in return for generous pay increases.
2 The focus of the 2003 Agreement was to ensure that all marine operators would co-operate in all marine related duties to enable management to achieve cost effectiveness in line with its business objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Dublin Port 2003 Agreement clearly sets out commitments and undertakings by the workers to training/development and familiarisation in all aspects of the job.
The Court would expect that before the implementation of any programme of improvement due regard must be given to timely communications with staff in order to clarify all aspects of the purpose and intent of the training.
The May 2002 Agreement, Clause 20(4) clearly sets out the Company's Grievance Procedure which provides a mechanism in respect of any issue in dispute to be processed under the procedures set out in that Clause. The procedures are there and should be followed, and in the case of any aspect of work issues that staff are not content with, a clear procedure exists. In this case the Court considers that the Grievance Procedure has not been followed, and, it thus follows that the action taken by one party to this dispute was not justified.
On the issue of the suspension of pay, this issue should be conceded by the Company in return for the complete commitment by the workers involved to fully participate in the training obligations clearly set down in the 2003 Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd October 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.