LCR22325

1. Change in work practices

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 26 November 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 December 2020.


UNIONS ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The Union says that the Company proposal to change the workers roster pattern is unworkable for them.

2. The working hours requirement for each crew member is very different to that found in any normal land-based employment. Seafarers working hours are compacted into shorter periods, in this case 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

3. The Union says that the workers are not looking for additional money to change their contracts. It says that the Company's proposed roster will not give the workers more time off.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

• 1. The Employer has no option but to alter the current roster pattern if it is to successfully achieve the retention of its contract.

The Court notes that the company has operated a three tug operation in the location for twenty years approximately. The company is now required by the contracting authority to tender for the tug operation and the authority has specified a two tug operation into the future.

The parties are in dispute as regards certain factual matters which are fundamental to the submissions of both before the Court. There is, for example, no unanimity between the parties as regards the number of tug movements which occurred across relevant time periods, the detail of how the workers attend for and carry out their work across the recurring four-week roster pattern or indeed the practicality of resourcing the tugs if additional crew is required.

The company has put forward a proposal for a two-tug operation involving three crews. It has asserted that this is the only basis upon which it can compete in a tender competition for a two-tug operation. The Trade Union disputes this assertion. The company has put forward rostering proposals which it says address the arrangements to apply to the three proposed crews in a two-tug operation. The Trade Union disputes those proposed rosters.

A reduction to three crews would require a reduction of three in the number of staff employed. The Company has asserted, and this does not appear to be disputed, that a reduction of two staff will be achieved on the basis of planned retirements. A third position would be made redundant and the Company has submitted that it is prepared to engage with the Trade Union in an effort to agree appropriate terms to apply to that redundancy.

Having regard to all of the circumstances and the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that a two-tug / three crew operation be agreed to come into operation on conclusion of the tender process should the Company be successful.

Upon acceptance of this recommendation, the parties should engage to agree the factual reality of the two-tug operation and address any roster or operational issues which might arise. This recommendation is made against the background that the Company has asserted that no change, other than roster arrangements, to the fundamental terms and conditions of employment of the workers concerned as a result of the introduction of a two tug operation.

In addition, the Court recommends that the parties should engage through normal procedures to finalise agreement on redundancy terms to apply to the one position to be made redundant and to address any matters of compensation generally which might reasonably arise.

In the event of a failure to agree on any of these matters, the parties may make a referral to the Court following conciliation at the Workplace Relations Commission in the normal way.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
23 December 2020	Chairman