As noted earlier, stevedoring is an ‘around the clock’ industry. Stevedoring workplaces use shiftwork to cope with the variability in the timing of ship arrivals and workload. However, shiftwork is not unique to stevedoring. As noted above, shiftwork arrangements are used also in other industries.
Some possible risks of shiftwork to the health and safety of employees could be mitigated by alternative work arrangements. Permanent employees, for example, have the option of working overtime at most workplaces before supplementary employees are engaged. Overtime rates of pay create incentives to volunteer for double header shifts, despite health and safety risks. Employers’ flexibility in this respect is constrained by the order of engagement. Greater numbers of permanent employees could also reduce risks to health and safety. However, there are currently a number of disincentives for stevedores to take on more permanent employees, such as high redundancy costs (chapter 6).
4.5 Summary of findings
Several work arrangements, as currently designed, constrain how management allocates employees to shifts on a daily basis. These include the order of engagement, equalisation schemes, notification requirements and rostered time off.
The order of engagement affects workplace performance by restricting the flexibility with which labour can be used. In particular, the use (in terms of shifts worked per week) of supplementary labour is limited by its low ranking in the order of engagement. As a result, management is constrained from engaging daily labour in the most cost-effective mix or the most appropriate skill mix to meet organisational requirements.
The order of engagement, combined with high shift premiums and penalty rates, substantially increases the cost of labour. This occurs because the order of engagement accords preference to overtime by permanent employees rather than the use of supplementary employees (who would not be paid the overtime rate).
The high shift premiums and penalty rates create an incentive for permanent employees to seek overtime shifts, which can result in reduced productivity and timeliness. Double headers involve higher levels of worker fatigue which can affect not only productivity but also employee health and safety.
Labour costs for a given level of activity are also increased through the combination of the order of engagement and the extent of rostered time off and leave entitlements. These arrangements reduce the availability of permanent labour, thus inflating the number of permanent employees required to meet operational requirements.
Working overtime on a regular basis can have deleterious effects on the health and safety, as well as the social and family lives of employees. Employees who consistently work overtime shifts spend more time ‘on the job’ and therefore have less time to devote to other activities during working weeks. The rotational roster system means that, during certain weeks of the roster cycle, employees’ leisure time may not coincide with that of family members and friends.
Equalisation schemes, while supporting employees’ notions of fairness, can have a negative impact on productivity and timeliness where they restrict management’s ability to allocate the appropriate labour to particular shifts and tasks. The schemes may also diminish incentives for permanent operational employees to improve their work performance. Equalisation schemes are much less of a constraint than in the past because of longer assessment periods; some variation in points is permitted during assessment periods; and there is a capacity to override equalisation in specific situations.
Under weekend notification, stevedores bear a significant risk of having to pay for non-working time. These costs would be reduced if daily notification arrangements were applied to weekend and Monday shifts and/or if more supplementary employees were used.
Irregular shifts allow stevedores greater flexibility in allocating labour over different parts of the day. At the same time, irregular shifts can be disruptive for the lives of employees and their families and friends. Larger workplaces — with a steadier stream of ships and work — are able to use a higher proportion of regular shifts than at smaller workplaces, with less possibility of paid non-working time occurring.
The risks of shiftwork to the health and safety of employees could be mitigated by alternative rostering and leave arrangements. However, employers’ flexibility in this respect is constrained by the order of engagement. Overtime rates of pay create an incentive for permanent employees to volunteer for double headers.
There were marked reductions in gang sizes, manning scales and manning levels in the Australian container stevedoring industry during the Waterfront Industry Reform Authority (WIRA) process. All the workplaces examined use continuous work shifts to achieve higher elapsed rates and lower ship turnaround times. Down drivers are being used more effectively than they were before the WIRA process, contributing to a reduction in paid non-working time. Gang sizes and manning scales for quay cranes and lashing are similar across most of the workplaces examined, including Fergusson Terminal in New Zealand. Constraints currently contributing to higher manning levels of permanent employees include the prescribed size and composition of workforces, the order of engagement, the extent of leave and rostered time off, the costs and difficulty of implementing redundancies, and restrictions on contracting out.
Manning1 arrangements in selected Australian container stevedoring workplaces
are examined in this chapter. At the outset, it is important to distinguish between manning scales and manning levels.
• Manning scales specify the number of workers per gang required to
perform defined tasks such as operating heavy equipment (for example,
two drivers for one quay crane) or performing other duties such as lashing. • Manning levels refer to the total number of workers employed at a
workplace. They include permanent employees, guaranteed wage
employees and supplementary employees.
There is obviously a direct relationship between manning levels, gang size and manning scales: an increase in manning scales translates into larger gangs and higher manning levels (holding all other arrangements constant).
1 Manning is the commonly used term in container stevedoring and refers to manning scales and/or manning levels.
Apart from manning scales (which, in principle, should be a function of technology and health and safety considerations), the key determinants of manning levels at any given container terminal include:
• user demand for stevedoring services (that is, container throughput); • rostering and leave arrangements (such as rostered time off); and
• the mix and use of permanent employees, guaranteed wage employees and supplementary employees (which are largely based on the labour costs and flexibility associated with each form of employment).
Changes in the demand and/or supply factors noted above create the impetus for stevedoring workplaces to adjust manning levels. Inability or failure to adjust manning levels when there are significant changes in these factors and work arrangements will generally hinder workplace performance.
The appropriateness of current manning scales at container terminals in Australia is a matter of contention. Several participants in this study claimed that gang sizes are larger than necessary. In particular, some participants commented that manning scales on heavy equipment could be further reduced. However, management at some of the Australian workplaces examined considered that manning scales had been reduced to minimum requirements in the operational area.
Manning scales and gang sizes in selected Australian container terminals are discussed in section 5.1. The main factors and work arrangements affecting manning levels are discussed in section 5.2.