Irish Ferries' corporate greed

In June 2005, both SIPTU and Irish Ferries agreed to a six week truce during which time Greg Sparks, of Farrell Grant Sparks accountants and SIPTU union official, Martin King did a review of Irish Ferries operations.

When the report came out Irish Ferries rejected it and soon after announced the redundancy of 540 workers, and the replacement of these with cheaper EU labour. One of the main arguments that Irish Ferries gave for this move is that they need to reduce costs in order to remain competitive. Both this report and the later Labour Court ruling showed that Irish Ferries' case was not convincing in this regard. The Sparks and King report showed that although they were at a competitive disadvantage in their Irish-French route, on their other routes and in freight they was no competitive disadvantage. And the report made recommendations that would keep the company viable, without them having to lay off 540 workers and replace them with cheaper labour.

The report said that Irish Ferries still maintained their market share for passenger numbers overall (38 per cent) and freight (26 per cent). In both these areas they say there is "no evidence of competitive pressure". In relation to the French route they said that their market share had decreased from 75 per cent in 2000 to 66 per cent, and that this "indicates considerable competitive disadvantage". The report did acknowledge that projections presented to them by Irish Ferries "are not unreasonable".

Their first recommendation was that Directors and Senior Managers should have their salaries/emoluments reduced by five per cent. They also recommended the removal of a five per cent annual bonus for Marine Officers. And, an overall reduction five per cent reduction in wages. They recommended a reduction in staff on vessels. They said they should outsource catering and cleaning services. In order to reduce shore side costs they said that Marine officers were willing to discuss to undertake duties that had previously been part of shore side offices. The report said that it would be "inappropriate" for the company to decline to take up these additional savings opportunities.

In November the Labour Court also agreed that the 540 jobs cuts were not required either saying that the company did not have a "sufficiently compelling case" to justify its plan.