FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DF DOYLE & CO LTD (REPRESENTED BY GARETH KYNE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Right To Follow Work
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between 85 casual Dockers, represented by SIPTU, and DF Doyle & Co Ltd., that the Dockers have the right to carry out work that has moved from the Upper Cork Harbour to a site in the Lower Cork Harbour. The Port of Cork, under the authority of Port of Cork Company, extends for a distance of twelve miles from the quays of Cork City to the Harbour's entrance at Roche’s Point.
The private Stevedores in the Port of Cork, of which DF Doyle & Co. Ltd. is one, have
agreements with the Dockers concerning manning levels and the allocation of Dockers in the Port of Cork’s facilities on the South Jetties, Tivoli & Ringaskiddy. SIPTU claims that its agreements with the private Stevedores concerning the publicly owned Upper Cork Harbour also apply in the privately owned facilities of Cork Dockyard Ltd. in the Lower Cork Harbour.
The Company's position is that these agreements are no longer financially sustainable, adding that the Company was not party to the Agreement.It also added that the future is uncertain as the entire site may be sold.
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 14th November 2007. in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th January 2008, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1A 1989 agreement states that where existing private Stevedoring companies carry out work which has moved from the upper port area to any location in the lower harbour, the Dockers who have traditionally done this work will be employed by any such Stevedore to carry out the work in the new location.
2As DF Doyle & Co Ltd. was a party to the 1989 agreement, and as Cork Dockyard Ltd. and DF Doyle & Co Ltd. have the same owners, the dockers are entitled to follow the work to Cork Dockyard Ltd. on the same terms and conditions that exist in the upper port.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Modernisation is fundamental to the future of the port. The 1989 agreement requires ‘existing Private Stevedoring Companies’ to hire the dockers for work only in the public quays in the Lower Harbour, and not in privately owned facilities such as Cork Dockyard Ltd.
2Cork Dockyard Ltd was not a party to this agreement between the Stevedores and Dockers, and the fact that DF Doyle & Co Ltd. – which was a party to this agreement – has the same owner as Cork Dockyard Ltd., is irrelevant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the issues raised in the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the parties accept that the situation in the Port of Cork has changed and that each contract will have to be competed for.
The Court does not therefore recommend in favour of an automatic right to follow work throughout the harbour.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th February 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.