'Last chances' all too frequent at Harland & Wolff

When it comes to "last chances" the Belfast shipyard responsible for the ill-fated RMS Titanic has had more than its fair share…

When it comes to "last chances" the Belfast shipyard responsible for the ill-fated RMS Titanic has had more than its fair share.

Harland & Wolff, once Northern Ireland's flagship company and employer of 35,000 people in the 1950s, has been battling steady decline over the past two decades.

While the yard's two massive yellow cranes, Samson and Goliath, still dominate the city's skyline, its recent history has been one of empty order books, job losses and legal disputes.

Founded in 1852 by a Yorkshireman, Mr Edward Harland, and a German, Mr Gustav Wolff, the yard reached the pinnacle of international shipbuilding with the launch of the Titanic, followed by its two sister ships, the Britannic and the Olympic, in 1912. Since its foundation the yard has produced more than 1,700 vessels.

READ MORE

During the second World War and in its aftermath the yard, with a record workforce, produced 140 naval ships, including minesweepers and battleships, and 140 merchant vessels - an average of a ship every week.

But the launch of the Canberra in 1960 marked the last cruise liner to be built at the Belfast yard. By the mid-1960s, it was facing serious cash-flow problems which led its management to seek subsidies from the old Stormont government. Since then, around £1 billion sterling (€1.62 billion) of taxpayers' money has gone to subsidise the company.

Located in staunchly Protestant east Belfast, shipyard workers took part in events such as the Ulster Workers' Council strike and protest rallies against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

In 1989, the yard returned to private ownership with politicians and church leaders among those buying shares to support the management/employee buy-out in partnership with the Norwegian shipping magnate, Fred Olsen.

Following privatisation, the yard focused on "series building" - the construction of a series of bulk carriers and oil tankers to fixed designs.

Korean competitors, however,were able to undercut substantially European companies in the market and H&W was forced to look at alternatives.

Attempts to enter the lucrative cruise liner market were frustrated in March 2000 when a £400 million order for the new Queen Mary II went to the French yard Chantiers de l'Atlantique. Soon after losing the contract, the remaining 1,800 employees were issued with protective redundancy notices.

One of H&W's mainstays has been the production of oil rigs and vessels used in off-shore exploration. Fluctuations in oil prices, however, meant fluctuations in the willingness of oil companies to order new vessels.

In April 1999, management announced profits of £5 million as a result of its focus on equipment for the oil exploration industry. Only months later, however, a dispute ensued with its only customer, US firm Global Marine, over who was responsible for covering the cost of extra work carried out on two vessels.

While H&W won an initial £21 million sterling arbitration claim against its US customer, the Belfast yard is still involved in a court battle with Global over a further £130 million.

In July 2000, the yard's parent company, Olsen Energy, announced record losses of about £8 million for the second quarter of the year, most of which it attributed to the shipyard. Two months later, H&W shed 600 of its remaining 1,200 workers as part of a restructuring plan to make it "leaner and more responsive".

Last year's results showed pre-tax losses of £3.6 million for the first six months with a slump in turnover from £92 million to £12.6 million.

Once H&W's last order for two British Ministry of Defence roll-on roll-off ferries, worth £80 million, is completed, the current restructuring plan does indeed appear to be the yard's last chance.