December 20, 2012Dear Sir,In response to questions generated in the media, I wish to make the following comments.First and foremost the suggestions that the port and port workers are “inefficient” are simply not true. Despite our differences with regards to the ongoing dispute I must stand up for our employees and the operation as a whole. I can state categorically that the production volumes for our port meet or exceed any other small port in the world with similar operating equipment and cargo volumes. We routinely turn ships around in a day while still managing a highly efficient container delivery service. What could be perceived as “inefficiencies” are more likely to be work practices that have become “custom and practice” in our unionised environment.Stevedoring Services Ltd. has invested heavily over the past six years in new cranes and container handling equipment, and training, to ensure that we can fulfil our service obligations.At no time have we attempted in these negotiations to deviate away from the 37.5 work week as suggested by the union in their notice to withdraw overtime. Readers should be aware that overtime is not mandatory according to the Collective Agreement, but it is generally accepted that a certain amount of overtime is required to make the port function effectively. Working outside of normal hours has become the “custom and practice” of the port so that the vessel schedule is preserved. “Overtime” in our environment is actually double the regular rate and applies to ANY time worked outside of what are essentially office hours. It would be better described as “Premium Pay.”With reference to staffing levels, as agreed with the Union via the Registry of Port Workers (Article 26 of the CBA), we have 40 port workers. This is the number of men that we agree is required to safely and efficiently operate the port and still accommodate sickness, vacation, compassionate leave and absences.Of this 40, 19 have daily work in the port. The remaining 21 primarily work only when there is a ship actively working in the port. The balance of their time is considered “non-productive time.” The demand on our business means that we have approximately 40-50 percent of non-productive time for 52 percent of our work force.In response to the question regarding the actual numbers of hours worked, I can confirm we have a seven and one half-hour work day. With the exception of nine Service Technicians, members of the Port Workers Division of the BIU work a union organised shift of two hours on and two hours off, regardless of their position or category. Essentially, out of a seven and half-hour day, only four and a quarter combined hours are actively worked per day. Thus, most only work 56 percent of the day. Management has attempted to address this with the Union numerous times to no avail. This is an entrenched “custom and practice” of a time when the dock was extremely busy. High volumes at the time effectively masked this work practice, which now contributes to the non-productive time issue.In essence, port workers work only half of the day and we only have work for half the staff for half of the week. This is the core of our dispute: the cost to the company to maintain this non-productive time is challenging the future of the company.We firmly believe in the axiom of “a fair day’s pay, for a fair day’s work.” However, understanding that there is a value to having employees available to work when necessary we are willing to pay a “standby” rate rather than sending workers home with no pay.With direct reference to the question of whether we are laying people off legally, the answer is a clear and resounding yes. This was obviously our last resort once our final proposal was rejected.Our Collective Agreement with the Port Workers, despite not being current, is still in effect and speaks to the Company’s ability and right to manage.Specifically, “Article 18 Temporary Layoffs” clearly addresses the issue of the reduced volumes and staffing requirements: Section 1 states: “In the event of a serious reduction in the volume of cargo to be handled, as the result of strike action abroad, or any other cause beyond the control of the Employer, which temporarily prevents a normal Stevedoring operation, the Employer undertakes, where possible, to give two weeks’ notice to the Union related to the intended reduction of work and those Employees affected, and will discuss with the Union the number of Employees required to properly handle the reduced volume.”We have always endeavoured to follow the terms of the Collective Agreement both in content and in spirit despite the agreement being over 70 years old and severely outdated for today’s business model.The most common question being asked is why not just change the operation? This is a simple question with a complex answer. Despite the fact that Article 35 of the CBA gives either party the ability to issue “three months’ notice of termination or modification” by either party, any change must be agreed to by both parties.Change, which is absolutely essential to the survival of Stevedoring, will not be agreed to by both parties if one side refuses to accept the realities of the day.PETER L ALDRICHCEO & General Manager, Stevedoring Services Ltd.