FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FOYNES STEVEDORES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing Arising From LCR19145
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employer 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 then sought productivity payments for having 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. The Labour Court issued a recommendation (LCR19145) in February 2008, which stated that the parties should re-engage on this matter and that if no agreement could be reached the Court would issue a definitive recommendation. The Labour Court has now been requested to issue a definitive recommendation in this dispute.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 2005 Agreement saw significant changes in working practices which resulted in significant savings for the Company.
2. Tonnage through the port has increased year on year since the 2005 Agreement.
3. Four years after the 2005 Agreement the Workers are still waiting for productivity payments.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Workers were paid €9,500 each for accepting the changes in work practices introduced by the 2005 Agreement.
2. The 2005 Agreement does not, however, include provision for productivity gains.
3.Operating environment does not justify further payments to workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that this matter is outstanding for a considerable period of time and it is in the interest of all parties that it be finally resolved.
Much of the difficulty which has arisen in the case centres on the interpretation of the letter sent to the Union on behalf of the Employers in March 2005. Suffice it to say that the letter does not say that past productivity will be paid for nor does it say that the discussions on pay which were proposed could be on future productivity.
By the way of bringing finality to this matter the Court recommends that the employer renew its offer of a 3% 'gateway' increase to take effect from 1st November 2008. The parties should then enter into discussions immediately on future productivity measures, over and above normal on-going change, which could generate an additional increase of not less that 2%, on a cost neutral basis. These discussions should be concluded within three months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th March, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.