FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PORT OF WATERFORD COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 5 PILOT BOATMEN (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Restructuring in relation to the Pilot Boatman Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Port of Waterford Company is a commercial semi-state body, established under Harbours legislation to develop, manage and operate the port on a commercial basis without recourse to central funding. The Company has endured a significant income loss across the board following the current recession and this is now compounded by the loss of a customer that represented over 30% of annual turnover.
The Port of Waterford Company currently employs 50 including those at its two wholly owned subsidiaries; the Stevedoring Company, Waterford Container Terminal Limited with 21 employees and the Port Security Company, Waterford Marine Utilities Limited with 4 employees. The subsidiary companies are essentially service providers operating on port infrastructure provided and owned by the parent company. The case concerns the restructuring of the Pilot Boatman service in the Port of Waterford which will result in redundancy for the 5 Boatmen. Despite protracted negotiations and the exchange of a number of counter proposals from both parties, agreement could not be reached.
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 the 2nd September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. These are not genuine redundancies as the service must be provided by the Port Company to most vessels entering and leaving the Port.
2. The Union understands the dire financial position of the Company and is willing to engage in meaningful negotiations on an enhanced redundancy package.
3. It will be difficult to bring all 5 Boatmen to a point where agreement can be reached, as some do not envisage redundancy as a solution that they could happily endorse.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Even before the recent loss of a key customer the demands on the services of the Boatmen was greatly reduced and the cost of running the service could not be justified on an economic basis.
2. Management have reached the conclusion that it is not possible to align the expectations of the Boatmen and what has now become imperatives of the business in order to keep it viable into the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that extensive negotiations have taken place between the parties on cost saving measures which could be implemented in the employment. However, while a number of proposals and counter proposals have been put forward, each of them has been rejected by one side or the other on grounds of practicality or because they would not yield the savings required.
It appears to the Court that few options remain which would not involve redundancies. It is noted that the Union previously rejected redundancies because the terms were unacceptable and they were to be compulsory in nature. It seems to the Court that the parties should make one further effort to reach an accommodation which would involve voluntary redundancies on enhanced terms for those with long service.
The Court recommends that the parties re-engage for a period up to but not exceeding 30th September 2009. If agreement is not reached by that date the parties should report back to the Court which will then make an early and definitive recommendation without the necessity of a further hearing. The Court further recommends that the deadline for the introduction of new arrangements proposed by the Company be deferred to allow this process to be brought to finality.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th September, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.
This Recommendation is issued supplemental to Recommendation LCR19636.
In Recommendation LCR19636 the Court recommended that the parties should make one further effort to reach an accommodation on the issues in dispute which would involve voluntary redundancies on enhanced terms for those with long service.
The Court recommended that the parties re-engage for a period up to but not exceeding 30th September 2009. The Court said that if agreement was not reached by that date the parties should report back to the Court, which would then make an early and definitive recommendation without the necessity of a further hearing. The Court further recommended that the deadline for the introduction of new arrangements proposed by the Company be deferred to allow this process to be brought to finality.
The parties reported back to the Court, on 25th September 2009 in the case of the Company and on 23rd October in the case of the Union. Agreement was not reached and the Court was asked to make a definitive recommendation.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties at the original hearing, and in their supplemental submissions, the Court recommends as follows: -
- The Company should offer a voluntary redundancy package comprising four weeks pay per year of service plus statutory terms, capped at the equivalent of two years pay or the equivalent of potential gross earnings up to normal retirement age, as it applies to each individual, which ever is the lesser.
In order to ameliorate the effects of the cap on those with long service an additional lump sum of €10,000 should be added to the amount produced by the above formula for those with more than 20 years service.
When the take up rate on this offer is established the parties should have further discussions with a view to accepting the other aspects of the Company’s proposals on restructuring.