FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FOYNES STEVEDORES IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Productivity Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The company is a group of Stevedore companies based at Foynes, Co Limerick. In 2000, in response to the Company's attempts to modernise working arrangements, the Union agreed that the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) would review manning levels and working practices. The IPC report was issued in 2002, and recommended a range of changes including a halving of manning levels. The IPC report failed to settle this issue and the dispute was referred to the Court, which issued a recommendation (LCR 18042) in December 2004.
- LCR 18042 became the context for further local level negotiations, which led to the 2005 Agreement between both parties. The Union is now seeking productivity payments because the workers have implemented changes in working practices. 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 19th September 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th January 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the 2005 Agreement resulted in significant savings for the Company.
2. Gang sizes have been reduced by up to a half in some cases.
3. Attendance and behaviour at work has improved.
4. The Union maintains that tonnage through the port has increased year on year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company claims that manning levels recommended by IPC report and LCR 18042 have not been achieved.
2. 2005 Agreement does not include provision for productivity gains.
3. Workers have already gained by the changes in work practices.
4. Operating environment does not justify further payments to workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court, having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, that the Agreement between the parties is agreed to encompass the text of the Agreement itself, as well as the IBEC letter of 11th March 2005.
In regard to the question of a productivity-related pay increase the relevant clause (Point 2 of the IBEC letter) provides as follows:-
- "It is agreed that six months from date of implementation of this proposal that the parties will engage in discussions on pay, which are to be concluded within a timeframe of 12 months from date of implementation of this proposal. It is also agreed that the employers objective regarding the gang size for Bulk Cargo and the Container Business will be part of these discussions."
Both sides agree that these discussions did not take place. The Court accordingly recommends that the parties should meaningfully re-engage on this agenda as a matter of urgency, taking the stated aspirations of both parties into account. If no agreement is reached by 31st March 2008, the parties may revert back to the Court for a definitive recommendation which will take account of the efforts made by the parties to resolve the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.