INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay of Motormen.
2. In 1994, an agreement was concluded which afforded the same rate of pay to Able Seamen (ABs) and Motormen. Motormen are engine room ratings who work on board ship. Able Seamen are deck hands who also work on board ship in a different role. In May, 1995 ABs were granted an increase of £10 per week in respect of lashing duties and the handling of hazardous cargo. Motormen subsequently submitted a claim for parity on the basis that Motormen handle and are exposed to hazardous cargo. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 13th of November, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of January, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd March, 1998.
3. 1. After considerable negotiations over a number of years, Motormen concluded an agreement which gave them parity of wage rates with ABs. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. The £10 increase paid to ABs for extra lashings and handling hazardous cargo was brought about following the introduction of much larger carrying capacity ferries with open afterdecks which enabled the carrying of hazardous cargo.
3. The Motormen also handle hazardous cargo and have to take bunkers on board, which are classed as hazardous. They also are required to work in close proximity to the hazardous cargo while performing maintenance duties around the deck or in just getting to and from the engine room.
4. 1. The £10 per week paid to the ABs was clearly paid for indexation of lashing money and for hazardous cargo handling. At the time of negotiations no mention was made of Motormen as they neither lash nor handle hazardous cargo.
2. The increase paid to ABs was in return for cost efficiency concessions and for increased levels of work.
3. The Company rejects the proposition that because one group gets increases on foot of concessions, another group will automatically follow.
4. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Partnership 2000.
5. Concession of the claim could also result in repercussive claims from other groups.
The Court accepts that the £10 per week increase paid to ABs was in respect of indexation of lashing money and, in part for hazardous cargo handling. As the same circumstances do not apply to Motormen, the Court does not recommend concession of their claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th March, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.