FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE HARBOUR COMPANY - AND - SIPTU (MPGWU) DIVISION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION INP&D TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Survival Plan
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Unions in relation to the proposed re-structuring of operations in the Port, affecting Port operatives, Harbour Police and maintenance staff.
Management contend that as a result of the current economic climate and an impending loss of a major contract, the Company is set to face serious financial difficulty and have therefore put together a plan that will allow for the Company to remain a viable business going forward. The plan includes redundancies, role re-structuring, reductions in shift work and overtime, cuts in mileage and travel allowances, amongst others.
The Unions reject this proposed plan and claim that there has not been sufficient engagement and negotiation with Management on the issues.
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 21st June 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th August, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
31. The Unions contend that their members are fully protected by the Harbours Act 1996. Any changes made to terms and conditions of employment including pay and pensions that would result in less favourable circumstances for members would deem the Company to be in breach of the Act.
2. The Unions have offered several cost-saving alternatives and are willing to consider any further proposals the Company can offer in relation to re-structuring and additional cost-saving measures.
3. The Unions contend that Management have for many years in advance been aware of the situation with the impending loss of revenue and subsequent financial difficulties resulting from the loss of one of the Company's major contracts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The Company is facing serious financial difficulty as a result of the economic downturn and the impending loss of one of its major contracts, hence the need for a business survival plan.
2. The Unions strong reliance on the protection of the Harbours Act is hampering negotations and preventing further progress being made in relation to the re-structuring of the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that no real engagement has taken place between the parties on the issues which form the subject of this referral. In these circumstances, and having regard to the total absence of any common approach to any of these matters, any recommendations which the Court could make on the substantive issues at this time would not advance the resolution of the dispute.
It is, however, clear to the Court that the Company has experienced a significant deterioration in its financial and commercial circumstances to which it must respond. The viability of the Harbour Company, and the sustainability of the employment which it supports, are obviously matters of considerable concern to the Company itself and to the Unions representing its staff. These issues must be addressed, with some urgency, by those parties. To date, and notwithstanding the efforts of the LRC, there has been no such engagement in any meaningful sense.
The issues affecting the Company should be addressed between the parties through the normal process of collective bargaining. For that purpose the Court recommends that the parties resume the conciliation process as soon as practicable. This should be on the understanding that both sides will negotiate in good faith with a view to concluding a collective agreement on such changes in terms and conditions of employment (and employment numbers) as are necessary in order to adequately respond to the difficulties facing the Company.
The process should not extend beyond a two-month time frame. If final agreement is not reached outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th August 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.