Email

Print

7News was there this evening when CWU President Audrey Matura-Shepherd emerged and announced that the stevedores would postpone their strike. Here's how she explained why it was delayed to the detriment of businesses:

Audrey Matura Shepherd - President, CWU
"We had agree to come back to work on 3 points. So, the 3 points was simply that we will come and work, but the port has to be willing to go back to the table on the issue of the retirement pension until we have the actual deed. We don't want any trickery anymore. We want we get in details. The second one was once they agree to that, the workers will go back and work from this morning. The third one was that going back to work did not mean that the workers gave up their right to strike at any time, which is a right they have. It was at that point we were always about to sign an agreement last night when port as usual brings in some new element and they wanted us to agree that if they would strike, that the workers have to give them 3 days' notice that they will strike. And that is not required. We are not essential service. Stevedores are not essential services. So that's where things broke down and we came back this morning."

"This morning, the position after consulting with the stevedores is that we are still willing to work, but we are not prepared to give you any notice. You have not given us anything, you have shown no good faith. And so we went through a whole series of discussions again. Again, the union threw out options of things we can do to be fair. But what was ironic, we went a step further and said okay let us try to compromise a bit and what they came back with to us was that okay we want you all agree that we could lock out you all workers and replace them with someone else. And I said no. That is not happening. I don't think they understand that work for these men is like their whole life. So that will not happen."

"So we had to come back and consult with our workers, because we decided let's take a different approach; we won't sign anything. We won't go into all these details where you are trying to take away our rights and so what we proposed to them and we came and consult with our workers is that the workers could go back to work with only one condition, that we go back to negotiate the retirement benefit until the end. It between that, all normal relations maintained. All their rights remain intact. We've not signed away anything."

If you've been following this industrial dispute, the issue is over pension and retirement benefits which the stevedores claim that the Port agreed to and backpedaled on at the last minute.

The main point of contention is who would be covered under this pension/retirement benefit, and according to the CWU and the Stevedores, it was to be retroactive to 2004. The Port claims that they did not agree to any retroactivity, and that it cannot afford such a scheme.

Well, 7News has acquired a copy of the agreement signed between the Matura-Shepherd Led CWU, and Ports Receiver Arturo "Tux" Vasquez.

It reads, quote, "Upon reaching the age of 60, stevedores' retirement benefit/payment will be 6%...(PBL 4%, along with the individual's own contribution of 2%..

After yearly medical examinations starting at the age of 60, for which stevedores may not be physically fit to work, or upon reaching the age of 65, stevedores will be paid for his services from his sixtieth retirement paymement to date of final retirement at the same rate of 6%.

This agreement will take effect upon execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties… End Quote.

As you, saw, there is no retroactivity clause, as the CWU President and the stevedores is claiming. So, did they commit a great blunder in omitting it in the signed agreement? That's what we asked Matura-Shepherd today:

Audrey Matura Shepherd - President, CWU
"When we were in discussion it was clear cut that it was from 2004 it was retroactive. We even discussed how it will affect those who have left and everything and we sign off a very simple agreement that shows our intention. And we went about negotiating other issues. The second issue was the one important to them was the working hours. It was during that negotiation that per chance Mr. Vasquez said, when one of the guys kept inquiring about the people who have left whether they will get their benefits and he said they have nothing else to get. And we were taken aback and we said we will adjust this again and we did that, he says well not only do they not have anything to get. The other have nothing to get, meaning nothing to get retroactively, only forward. Then we said you know that's not what we agreed on."

Daniel Ortiz
"In hindsight, do you concede that it was a bad move not to include this retroactivity clause in the document signed on November 2nd?"

Audrey Matura Shepherd - President, CWU
"No. Because the document was clear that it was only in principle we are agreeing on the quantity. So, had we known that that's how they would operate, then that's where the hindsight would come. I think where we went wrong is that we believe in good faith, that when we discussed and we say let's go put everything from the past behind and I try to convince the stevedores that no man, this process could work. There is a professional way. You have to give the people an opportunity. Don't be saying that its distrust - I convinced them of that. And when it happen to me that I had the stab in my back, then what will I say. I have to admit to them that well you all are right, so we have to do things differently. And that is what we concluded today, that on that issue we won't stop until we put every detail. We've gone as far and they've accepted that now we record the meetings."

As you saw in our story, there were police officers in abundance to keep the peace, and unconfirmed information to our newsroom was that the Port may have been considering bringing in stevedores from outside - and the police were there to ensure their safe entry.

Fortunately, there was not need for that this time, but apart from the peace keeping police was senior cop turned attorney, Chester Williams. He stepped in to act as a mediator, and this evening we asked him if that was really necessary. Here's what he had to say:

Sr. Supt Chester Williams, Commander, Eastern Division Southside
"As an attorney I have experienced and trained in mediation, because its a part of our legal training. And I use my experience and my knowledge as a mediator to facilitate the process between both parties to try and arrive at a solution to the problem."

Reporter
"We heard last night that you had the riot squad as standby?"

Sr. Supt Chester Williams, Commander, Eastern Division Southside
"You must understand that in a situation where there is some degree of dispute or demonstration, that's a part of the police standard operating procedures. We must always be in a state of readiness. It does not mean that because we have those things in place, means that they will be use. We try to use diplomacy first before we decide to use any other means."

Reporter
"Do you feel as though you were needed here?"

Sr. Supt Chester Williams, Commander, Eastern Division Southside
"Yes, I think that my presence was in deed needed to facilitate the process between the parties and as the mediator I would make suggestions and give the parties an opportunity to lay the issues on the table and see how they could find a resolution to that issue and when it come at a deadlock then I would make suggestion and see how we move forward."

Matura-Shepherd says that the union's position is that they will return to the drawing board on the negotiations over the retirement and pension packages for the stevedores.