Page 200 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 200
plex Gateways
of Justice of the European Community, which had sanctioned the appli-
cability of competitive legislation to the sector of operations and port la-
bour as well. The port labour reserve was therefore abolished and the role
of harbour companies and groups redefined. Previously, workers involved
in port operations had to form companies, which then had the exclusive
right by law to carry out the operations of embarkation, disembarkation,
transshipment, and general handling of goods in ports. This reserve was
guaranteed by means of criminal penalties for those who used labour not
registered in the appropriate registers (Costantini 2014; Macario 1992).
Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Law regulate port operations by identi-
fying three ‘markets’ within the cycle:
a) the market of operators offering their services to the user, the
shipping carrier, and/or the terminal operator, for which the
carrying out of exclusive fixed structures is not necessary (port
companies authorized pursuant to art.16),
b) the market for temporary labour supply companies (art. 17),
c) the market for terminal operators, that is to say, operators who
carry out the loading, unloading, and handling of goods by
means of fixed infrastructures and superstructures (art. 18).
This subdivision brought elements of flexibility into the organiza-
tion of work in order to ensure adequate coverage of manpower suitable
to satisfy an often fluctuating demand. However, the fact that the law
provided for a sort of ‘optional monopoly’ in favour of institutions de-
riving from the transformation of the companies and port groups, made
subsequent amendments and additions necessary, in particular as re-
gards art. 17, namely temporary work. The former harbour companies, in
fact, continued to provide temporarily, but in a monopoly position, their
workforce to those companies whose staff were insufficient in periods of
increased work (Munari and Carbone 2006, 249).
This tortuous process was finally stopped when Law 186/2000 was
passed, providing a stable structure to the sector six years after its origi-
nal formulation. According to this regulation, each port has a single tem-
porary labour supplier in order to allow authorized companies (art.16) or
concessionaires (art.18) to turn to the so-called labour pool, for the inte-
gration of staff among its direct employees (Ales and Passalacqua 2012).
If we examine the responses of the Italian ports to the new regu-
lations, it appears that implementation formulas and operating models
200
of Justice of the European Community, which had sanctioned the appli-
cability of competitive legislation to the sector of operations and port la-
bour as well. The port labour reserve was therefore abolished and the role
of harbour companies and groups redefined. Previously, workers involved
in port operations had to form companies, which then had the exclusive
right by law to carry out the operations of embarkation, disembarkation,
transshipment, and general handling of goods in ports. This reserve was
guaranteed by means of criminal penalties for those who used labour not
registered in the appropriate registers (Costantini 2014; Macario 1992).
Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Law regulate port operations by identi-
fying three ‘markets’ within the cycle:
a) the market of operators offering their services to the user, the
shipping carrier, and/or the terminal operator, for which the
carrying out of exclusive fixed structures is not necessary (port
companies authorized pursuant to art.16),
b) the market for temporary labour supply companies (art. 17),
c) the market for terminal operators, that is to say, operators who
carry out the loading, unloading, and handling of goods by
means of fixed infrastructures and superstructures (art. 18).
This subdivision brought elements of flexibility into the organiza-
tion of work in order to ensure adequate coverage of manpower suitable
to satisfy an often fluctuating demand. However, the fact that the law
provided for a sort of ‘optional monopoly’ in favour of institutions de-
riving from the transformation of the companies and port groups, made
subsequent amendments and additions necessary, in particular as re-
gards art. 17, namely temporary work. The former harbour companies, in
fact, continued to provide temporarily, but in a monopoly position, their
workforce to those companies whose staff were insufficient in periods of
increased work (Munari and Carbone 2006, 249).
This tortuous process was finally stopped when Law 186/2000 was
passed, providing a stable structure to the sector six years after its origi-
nal formulation. According to this regulation, each port has a single tem-
porary labour supplier in order to allow authorized companies (art.16) or
concessionaires (art.18) to turn to the so-called labour pool, for the inte-
gration of staff among its direct employees (Ales and Passalacqua 2012).
If we examine the responses of the Italian ports to the new regu-
lations, it appears that implementation formulas and operating models
200
