FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAINPORT GROUP LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Elimination of Manning for Fuel Discharge.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a proposal by the Stevedores in Foynes Port to eliminate the assistance provided by Dockers when fuel and other cargo are discharged from and loaded onto tankers at the facility located adjacent to the port. 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 16th April, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The use of Dockers during the discharging and loading of tankers was agreed to in the 'Agreement between Foynes Stevedores and SIPTU', which was finalised in 2006.
2. The Company is now seeking to transfer this work to a new terminal so that the work can be done by workers other than Dockers.
3.The Dockers have honoured the 2006 agreement even though they have seen their earnings eroded by a reduction in tonnage through the port and a reduction in gang sizes and the Company should continue to operate within the terms of the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Once the connection is made Dockers have no function during the discharge and loading of bulk tankers.
2. Stevedores can no longer ask their customers to pay Dockers for work which is not performed.
3.This anti-competitive restrictive practice must be ended.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court arose due to the Company’s decision to cease employing Dockers for work associated with docking, discharging and loading of tankers. When the Company (along with the other Stevedore Companies at Foynes Port) sought agreement on a buy-out arrangement for the work involved, the Union on behalf of 29 Dockers, rejected the offer and held that an agreement reached in 2006 on gang sizes prevented the Company from changing this work practice.
The Company put forward a number of arguments for the elimination of the work practice and stated that Foynes Port is the only Port in the Country where Dockers are involved in the discharge and loading of bulk tankers. The Company informed the Court that normally this work is carried out by terminal staff in conjunction with members of the ships’ crews and stated that as its clients were refusing to pay for the service it is no longer economically viable.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that there are valid arguments for the elimination of this aspect of Dockers’ work practices. However, the Court is of the view that further discussions are required and accordingly recommends that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions and negotiations on the elimination of this work practice. These discussions should commence with immediate effect and should be completed by no later than 16th August 2010. In the event that there are any remaining issues unresolved by the recommended deadline date, they may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
*Addendum to the Court’s Recommendation
While Mainport Group Limited was the only Stevedore Company included in the referral to the Court, as all 29 Dockers are retained on a list for employment by four named Stevedore Companies, the Court is of the view that the Union should enter into the discussions collectively with all four Companies.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th July, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.