Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8784 Case Number: LCR11078 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARA MINES - and - AUEW(TASS);ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the payment of a plant bonus to workers not directly involved in production.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the bonus scheme as introduced was
based on the principle of percentage of projected targets. On the
basis of the submissions made however it appears as if it was
never fully clarified between the parties as to whether the
percentage would be related to a fluctuating production target.
In these circumstances and in the absence of negotiation on the
issue in relation to 1986, the Court recommends that the claim as
made by the Union be conceded for the year 1986.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8784 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11078
CC8765 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11078
Parties: TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED BY UNIONS OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (T.A.S.S.)
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a plant bonus to workers not
directly involved in production.
Background:
2. In 1982 a plant bonus scheme was agreed between the Company
and Unions. The scheme applies to all workers not directly
involved in production (288 in total of which 122 are members of
the Unions) and has been based on a budgeted target of 2.3 milled
tonnes (mt.) (details supplied to the Court). Payments are made
twice a year. Early in 1986 there were rumours that the budgeted
target was to be increased to 2.5 mt. The Unions sought
clarification of this from the Company. They were informed that
the bonus payment would be based on 2.3 mt. In December, 1986
there was a shortfall in the bonus paid to the workers. It
transpired that the payments were based on 2.5 mt. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 12th
December, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 28th
January, 1987 and as no agreement could be reached both parties
agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 4th March,
1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The bonus scheme was agreed between the Company and the
Unions involved and the only way it can be changed is
by negotiation. The Company have made no efforts to
enter into any negotiations regarding change.
(b) The Company when approached in early 1986 stated that
there would be no change in the bonus scheme. They now
say that this was a misunderstanding. The Unions do
not accept this statement as obviously if the Company
had intended to change the basis of the bonus scheme
they would have entered into negotiations.
(c) The Unions accept the Company's right to set whatever
production targets they feel are appropriate but if
these targets are to affect bonus payment then it is
obvious that such changes would have to be negotiated.
(d) The Unions believe that the decision to change the
budgeted target was a unilateral one taken by the
Company immediately prior to the payment of the bonus
at Christmas as a cost cutting exercise and with
disregard for industrial relations procedures and the
effects on the workers concerned.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The budgeted tonnage went up to 2.5 mt in 1986. It was
necessary to revise the Company's targets and costs due
to the state of the industry. This was made known to
all staff in a letter which accompanied their bonus
payments in December, 1985 (details supplied to the
Court). In February, 1986 management was asked if the
bonus would be paid on the basis of a 2.5 mt instead of
a 2.3 mt budget. Due to a misunderstanding in
management a reply was given that the bonus would be
paid on 2.3 mt.
(ii) The scheme is based on a percentage of production
budget/tonnes worked. This is the basis on which the
payment was made and is therefore in line with the
terms of the scheme, which had been accepted by all
categories of workers.
(iii) The cost of conceding this claim would be #126,000. In
the Company's present serious financial and operational
position, when it is seeking a 14 month pay pause with
no increase in labour costs and a minimum of 10%
reduction in the workforce employed, it is not in a
position to implement this payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the bonus scheme as introduced was
based on the principle of percentage of projected targets. On the
basis of the submissions made however it appears as if it was
never fully clarified between the parties as to whether the
percentage would be related to a fluctuating production target.
In these circumstances and in the absence of negotiation on the
issue in relation to 1986, the Court recommends that the claim as
made by the Union be conceded for the year 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
3rd April, 1987
M.D./J.C.