Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1992

Vol. 417 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Port Dispute.

Mr. Gregory

The Dublin Port dispute is of grave importance not just to the more than 200 workers directly involved and, of course, to their families whose livelihood is threatened but also to the future of Dublin Port and the many thousands of jobs indirectly linked to the port. I have no doubt that the Minister is well aware of the importance to the whole economy of this country's premier port. It must be of serious concern to him to see the Dublin Port and Docks Board in a mood of deliberate confrontation — one could even say on a collision course. The inevitable result of the board's apparent determination to liquidate Dublin Cargo Handling will be industrial chaos.

The board have adopted a hamfisted approach to solving the problem in Dublin Cargo Handling by issuing an ultimatum to the workers to either accept the board's demands, which involve redundancy for nearly one-third of the workforce and various other dramatic changes in traditional work practices, or alternatively to face liquidation, which would undoubtedly mean the loss of all the jobs involved. It would be a catastrophe for the men and their families and would place the whole future of the port in jeopardy. Because the men yesterday deferred a decision to vote on this ultimatum the port board now say that there will be no further negotiations and that the liquidation will go ahead. This strategy of the Port and Docks Board amounts to blackmail and is certainly no way to conduct industrial relations.

In the last 20 years or more I have witnessed the tragic decline in the labour force of the docks. Years ago members of virtually every inner city family were employed directly or indirectly by the Port and Docks Board including my late father. However, the position is different today, and that surely makes it all the more urgent to save the jobs that remain. It would be a major social disaster in the inner city if more than 200 jobs were lost. Yet it seems that the port board are intent on allowing that. I appeal to the Minister to intervene in this dispute before it is too late and to bring the two sides together in new negotiations to resolve the differences in the normal way between employer and employees and their unions.

I would point out, in the words of Michael Hayes, General Secretary of the Marine Port and General Workers' Union, that the position in Dublin Cargo Handling is not hopeless and that the workers are willing to accept change and, indeed, acknowledge the need for it. The dockers clearly accept the need for reorganisation and an end to restrictive practices. They want to negotiate and reach agreement but I regret that the port board are not prepared to negotiate. Why is this? Is it because the board wish to arbitrarily change the conditions of employment rather than wait for the findings of an independent assessor as was agreed following the Labour Court's recommendations of last year? Is it because the board wish to impose draconian working conditions on the employees and disregard recently negotiated legally binding registered agreements? Is it because the board wish to transfer the business of Dublin Cargo Handling to certain interested parties, including some of the companies bought out in 1982, with the intention of using the liquidation as a vehicle to frustrate the legal obligations that would exist under a normal transfer of business?

I pose these questions because these are the very real expressed fears of the workers in Dublin Cargo Handling. I am sure the Minister will agree that since the inception of Dublin Cargo Handling work practices and conditions of the dock workforce have dramatically changed and the number of employed has been more than halved. Surely this underlines the genuine willingness of the workforce to accept and facilitate change. I want the Minister to be in no doubt that the Dublin Cargo Handling workforce are clearly indicating that they are prepared to negotiate change to the benefit of Dublin Cargo Handling. I again appeal to the Minister, whom I know to be a fair and caring person, to use his good offices to reopen negotiations to bring to an end the threat of liquidation, thereby achieving long term industrial peace and stability, which Dublin Port so badly needs.

Minister for Labour (Mr. Cowen)

Under the Harbours Act, 1946, Dublin Port and Docks Board are responsible for the management of Dublin Port. The port is divided into three separate labour sectors: (i) the cross channel sector where companies employ their own labour and operate from allocated berths; (ii) a sector comprising oil imports and ore and Guinness exports — companies in this sector employ their own labour but operate from common user berths; and (iii) the deep sea sector where the berths are common user and the labour is provided by Dublin Cargo Handling Limited (DCH), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dublin Port and Docks Board.

The present difficulties relate to the deep sea sector of the port and the employees of Dublin Cargo Handling. Dublin Cargo Handling Limited were established in 1982 as an initial attempt to rationalise labour in the deep sea sector of the port as a response to the chaotic situation which had arisen, with nine stevedoring companies operating independently of each other and their financial viability being quickly eroded by rigid labour practices.

In 1985 Dublin Port was left with a 100 per cent shareholding in Dublin Cargo Handling following the withdrawal of the private stevedoring company, Associated Port Terminals, in the face of heavy losses. Dublin Cargo Handling have continued since to suffer heavy losses. From 1982 to the end of 1990 Dublin Cargo Handling's accumulated losses, together with redundancy payments of £7.6 million, reached a total of £16.2 million. Dublin Cargo Handling incurred losses of approximately £1.5 million last year.

In the face of these continuing losses, the board and management of Dublin Port and Dublin Cargo Handling took the view that the loss-making situation at Dublin Cargo Handling was unsustainable. A major study by Stokes Kennedy Crowley on the organisation of stevedoring in the port was commissioned and completed in May 1991. The study report concluded that the effect of Dublin Cargo Handling's losses limited the capacity of the port authority to fund necessary capital development and discouraged the growth of trade through the port. The Stokes Kennedy Crowley report identified a range of problems, including overstaffing at all levels, high absenteeism and sickness, low average utilisation of dock labour, inefficiencies, poor labour allocation systems and no prospect of profitability. The lack of choice for ships but to use Dublin Cargo Handling and the high cost of services were also highlighted. The competitiveness of Dublin Port was also a matter of serious concern to the Culliton Review Group on industrial policy, with a low frequency of services and shorter opening hours being particularly highlighted.

There is no doubt that Dublin Port, as the premier port in the State, is of critical national importance. In the face of stiff competition from other ports, both in the State and in Northern Ireland, it is vital that an efficient and cost-competitive service at the port is established. That is what the Dublin Port and Docks Board say they are trying to achieve by means of their current rationalisation and restructuring proposals. The industrial relations difficulties centre on the need to bring operations at the port into line with modern practices so as to ensure the future viability of the port in the face of growing competition. It is vital that work practices be changed if the efficient, and reliable movement of goods and services is to be assured.

A six week unofficial strike took place at the port last December and January. Arising from intensive discussions between both sides a formula for a return to work on 20 January was agreed.

This return to work formula involved provisions for further discussions between the parties, with the help of the Labour Relations Commission, to bring about a negotiated settlement to the issues of increased flexibility, involving a restructuring of stevedoring operations. In view of the fact that little progress in these talks was being made, the Dublin Port and Docks Board decided on 19 February that Dublin Cargo Handling should be put in liquidation unless the situation could be resolved. In response, the Marine Port and General Workers Union served strike notice. Despite further intensive discussions at the Labour Relations Commission, no agreement was reached. These discussions centred on a set of proposals which Dublin Cargo Handling put to the Marine Port and General Workers Union. These proposals provided for restructuring and redundancies. The redundancy package on offer to workers was upgraded during the course of negotiations and would mean an average of about £40,000 per person. Other aspects of the package include phased compensation of £8,000 in return for flexibility on the part of those who remain. The 189 dockers and checkers were due to vote on these proposals yesterday but decided to defer the ballot.

A settlement of the matters at issue between Dublin Cargo Handling and the workers is essentially a matter for resolution between themselves. As I have indicated, the Labour Relations Commission have been extensively involved already, but if they or the Labour Court can provide further assistance in reaching a satisfactory resolution of the difficulties they remain available to do so at my instruction.

The essential issue in this dispute is the future of the deep sea sector of Dublin Port and its ability to provide a competitive service. That issue must be addressed.

The issues involved cannot be postponed for much longer, as the High Court is due to consider the petition to liquidate and wind up on 6 April next. I fully appreciate that the issues involved are complex and historic but, having regard to all the implications, I would call on the parties to make further efforts, even at this late stage, to reach a settlement. As I have indicated to the Deputy, whose concern in this regard I know is genuine, the services of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are ready to assist and I invite them to do so.