FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase In Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the crew of the Company's pilot boat for significant pay increases, retrospective to March 2006. Although there was a significant increase in business at the port from 2004, this was followed by a significant reduction in business since 2007.
This 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 August 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th November 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers operate in the most severe weather conditions, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
2. The Workers carry out more duties than their equivilants in other ports.
3.The Company's former Chief Executive Officer accepted the merits of this claim prior to his departure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded under the terms of Towards 2016.
2. There has been a significant reduction in revenue in 2007 and 2008.
3.Concession of this claim would increase costs and further erode the Company's competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of this case the Court has had regard to the terms of the agreement reached between the parties in 2004 on foot of the proposals of the Independent Facilitator. That agreement provides in clear terms that in consideration for the increases in pay and other concessions those associated with the current claim would co-operate with any increased traffic which is achieved by the Port Company in the area under its remit without any additional pay claims.
There is a significant difference of interpretation between the parties on whether that commitment was a continuing one or was intended to apply only during the currency of the Sustaining Progress Partnership Agreement. In the Court’s view it is extremely unlikely that the Facilitator intended that a continuing increase in pay would be paid in return for a commitment to co-operate with increased traffic which would expire within two years.
In any event it is clear that there has, in fact, been a reduction in traffic using the Port Company’s services since the expiry of Sustaining Progress. In these circumstances the Court cannot see any merit in the claim for a pay increase based on increased productivity.
For these reasons, and having regard to the stabilisation provision of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd December, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.