FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARINE TERMINALS LIMITED - AND - PORT OPERATIVES CONTROL ROOM STAFF & CLEANERS (REPRESENTED BY MPGW / SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compulsive Redundancies and changes to Terms & Conditions
BACKGROUND:
2. The case was referred to the Court on the 9th September, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th September, 2009. The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
This investigation was conducted against the background of a long running dispute between the parties concerning a restructuring of the Company’s business at Dublin Port. That restructuring involved redundancies and changes in conditions of employment for those remaining. The company declined the Court’s invitation to attend the hearing but it did provide the Court with a written statement setting out its position on the matters in dispute.
In its submission to the Court the Union addressed a number of issues in relation to the Company’s proposals for redundancies and changed terms and conditions for those remaining.
The Unions claims were summarised in its submission to the Court as follows: -
•Redundancy payment equal to six weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements
•That the job numbers be increased from 27 to 38 operatives so as to ensure that there is cover for all aspects of the job, including breaks, use of banks men checking for damage and stud work. In addition the cleaner should be returned to her position and original hours contract.•That further meaningful discussions take place regarding family friendly shift rosters while ensuring that they meet the needs of the business.•That the Company commit to an ongoing training programme so as to ensure that all employees have the option of being constantly up skilled and flexible. Training should focus on all makes and types of cranes and control room functions and that all operators should be paid a salary of €66,341 per annum as proposed by the Company for control room staff.•That no changes be made now or in the future to agreed procedures, structures, pay terms and conditions of employment without negotiation and agreement and that the Company utilise the agreed procedures for dispute resolution.•That the selection criteria should be voluntary then LIFO upon failing to achieve the numbers
•That any employee made compulsorily redundant be given the first choice of employment when business picks up again.•That days in lieu owed should be honoured.•That the parties agree the terms of a no recrimination clause
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute be terminated on the following terms: -
Redundancy terms
1. A central issue in dispute concerns the financial compensation which should be available to those being made redundant and the mode of selection for redundancy. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Company should offer, and the Union should accept, a package of six weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements. A week's pay, for the purpose of calculation, should be average pay determined by reference to the last twenty-six weeks in which the individual was in full-time employment prior to being made redundant.
2. The redundancies should be offered on a voluntary basis in the first instance. If sufficient volunteers are not available selection should be by predetermined objective criteria. The parties should immediately seek to agree on criteria. Should agreement not be reached the matter should be referred to an agreed arbitrator, for a final and binding decision. Should the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator the Court will make a nomination.
3. Should any dispute arise concerning the application of the criteria for selection to any individual that matter should be referred, after local discussion, to the arbitrator referred to at 2 above, again for final decision.
Other issues
4. On the information currently before it, and in the absence of detailed submissions from the Company, the Court is not satisfied that it could make a definitive recommendation on other outstanding matters at this time. In these circumstances the Court recommends that the outstanding issues be referred to the arbitrator referred to at 2 above for final decision.
Termination of the dispute
5. This matter was referred to the Court by the union under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relation Act 1969 and the Union undertook to be bound by this recommendation. On acceptance of this recommendation by the company there should be an immediate termination of the current dispute. Both parties should undertake that there will be no recrimination or victimisation on either side arising from any matter which occurred during, or is connected with, the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th October, 2009______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.