FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK PORT FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Modernisation Programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Port of Cork is the third largest in the country with up to 100,000 employed in the movement of goods and is the gateway for both imports and exports for the south of the country with an annual trading value of approximately €35 billion. The Cork Port Facilities Company Limited launched a strategic Development Plan which sets out the vision for the future. This Plan sees the development of the container business, which will be dependent on private funding in addition to the investment from the Port Company, becoming a single integrated terminal staffed by skilled permanent staff which will enable a single box rate to be announced, something Port customers have been demanding for years. This Plan will ultimately lead to a loss of income for Dockers and a reduction in their number through redundancy, these issues have been discussed at length by both sides but without success.
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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th November, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union agrees that Management has the right to manage but it must be done within the framework of what is agreed. If decasualisation of the workforce at Tivoli were to be implemented Dockers would suffer income reduction and the right to follow work into the lower harbour.
2. New work practices would further reduce the earning potential of our members and have a serious knock-on effect on the wider community whick also depends on the Port. In order to continue meaningful negotiations the questions of pension and retirement lump sum rights need to be satisfactorily addressed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The third phase of the rationalisation plan was agreed in 2003 but there is no progress in implementing the plan and this in turn has resulted in a modernisation proposal being presented by Management in August 2007 to the Dockers who then refused to discuss or negotiate on it.
2. The present arrangements are outdated and are inhibiting investment and they effectively act as employment generators for the Dockers which do not give sufficient recognition to new technology and the impact of bigger cranes which reduce the need for manual labour.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union is obliged by the requirements of good industrial relations practice to engage in negotiations with the Port Company in respect of its modernisation programme.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties engage in immediate discussions, with a view to reaching agreement, on the employers' proposal. These discussions should continue for a period of not more than six weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
If agreement is not reached, outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th February, 2008.______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.