FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE HARBOUR (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Survival Plan - 9 Harbour Police.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union represents 9 Harbour Police. The Company are seeking to introduce revised terms and conditions of employment and a revised roster for the Harbour Police due to its financial position. The Union reject the Company's proposed changes to its members working conditions. It argues that its members have made significant contributions to the efficiencies, productivity and cost effectiveness of Dun Laoghaire Harbour at this juncture in time.
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 18th October, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th January, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Harbour Police grade produced a roster change proposal which they were prepared to implement as far back as January, 2011 which would have provided further savings to the Company. In a serious of meetings between the Union and new Harbour Master in July and August, 2011 the revised shift roster was accepted and commitments on pay, unsocial premiums and allowances were reaffirmed. Senior Management's denial as to these terms being agreed in August, 2011 is wholly unacceptable to the Union.
2 The Union does not accept the Company's claim that its Management team has taken a cut of between 15% and 35% in the value of their remuneration.
3 The Union has in recent months acquired compelling information that does not support the Company's agenda for more rationalisation. The Company continues to demand rationalisation as if 2012 was the first year to experience a seasonal ferry service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is currently in a loss making position and will remain so until the proposed restructuring is fully implemented. The Company can no longer operate with a hugely reduced level of income and the extraordinary level of labour costs and inflexibility.
2 The Company has endeavoured to negotiate in good faith, over a protracted period of time, to fully maintain the existing terms and conditions of the 9 Harbour Police. It cannot continue to do this. In contrast to their former Civil and Public Service colleagues, the Harbour Police have had no reduction in their terms and conditions of employment and continue to work in a highly inflexible, inefficient and costly work pattern.
3 The Company has a plan to develop the Harbour and to produce a sustainable revenue base for the future. The Company cannot undertake any of this activity without funding. It cannot raise this funding until it moves from a loss making position into a modestly profitable position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court arises following Labour Court Recommendation No 19892 which concerned the Company’s proposed Survival Plan. The Court recommended,inter alia,
- “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…..
If final agreement is not reached outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.”
The Court notes the decline in the Company’s revenue since April 2011 resulting from the diminishing Stena Line contract; this will have a severe impact on the Company’s finances. The Court notes the efforts made to introduce a survival plan to cope with the impact of these developments; these included major cost cutting measures across the board, voluntary redundancies and an agreement with Maintenance staff on cost-efficiencies, flexibility's and new rosters.
A lengthy discussion/negotiation process has ensued including the commissioning of various independent exercises, including a joint exercise by an ICTU industrial engineer and a long standing Marine Consultant. These exercise examined how efficiencies could be achieved in the work of the Harbour Police in order to respond to the Company’s changing operational needs and to identify the most efficient utilisation of operational structures. All of these exercises highlighted the requirement for roster changes and greater flexibility.
Despite the intensive negotiations between the parties, the issues remained unresolved. An agreement was reached with the Union on temporary rostering arrangements designed to meet some of the Company’s cost cutting requirements, however, due to the fluctuating nature of the business which has been steadily declining since April 2011 and with further decline anticipated, in the absence of an agreed joint approach the Company sought to introduce a roster devised by the Marine Consultant.
The Marine Consultant in his analysis of the work found that there was scope for a reduction in the number of Harbour Police due to the business’ seasonality factors and taking account of the continuing difficulties facing the Company, he designed a 7-man roster for Harbour Police. This was not acceptable to the Union. As all further attempts to resolve the issues were unsuccessful the matter of the Company’s survival plans and its impact on the Harbour Police was referred to the Court.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that further discussions are required on the issues in dispute, however, in the context of the difficulties facing the Company the Court accepts that the 7-man roster with its inherent flexibility's recommended by the Marine Consultant should be implemented with immediate effect. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the parties should enter into full engagement on the Company’s proposals for a survival plan as defined at conciliation on 1stSeptember 2011 and as outlined in its letter to the Union dated7th July 2011. The Court recommends that this process should be carried out under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and should be completed by no later than 30thMarch 2012.
In the event that there are any outstanding issues they should be jointly referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th February, 2012______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.