Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86654 Case Number: LCR10893 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARA MINES - and - ITGWU |
Claim that the standards used by the Company to cover the installation of swellex bolts are not correct.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that both sides agree that the introduction of
Swellex bolts has not had any impact on the work of the claimants.
Accordingly the question of revised rest allowances for
rockbolting crews is a separate issue unrelated to the use of the
new bolts. The Court also notes that, despite the studies made by
reference to ILO Guidelines, a wide divergence of views still
exists between the parties as to the rest allowances which should
apply. The Court recommends that in order to address this
question - which has implications for bonus earnings - both sides
should obtain information from the ILO and other sources as to the
work/rest periods ratio applying to similar workers in similar
undertakings elsewhere. Such information should assist the
parties in establishing whether the arrangements in Tara Mines are
in line with good practice elsewhere.
In the meantime, the Company should implement its offer to
increase the present rest allowance from 14.5% to 15.7%.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86654 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10893
CC86101 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10893
PARTIES: TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim that the standards used by the Company to cover the
installation of swellex bolts are not correct.
Background:
2. This claim concerns twenty-four workers employed by the
Company in the Miner 1 grade. These workers are also referred to
as rock-bolters. In January, 1985, the Company introduced a new
method and type of roof support (Swellex-Bolts) in the Mine. In
May, 1985, following studies the Company compiled new standards
for the installation of the roof supports. The Union had an
examination of the standards carried out. Arising from this
examination the Union is claiming that the overall standard which
the Company has provided for rest-allowance is not correct. The
Company rejects this claim.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
15th January, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held
on 15th April and 6th August, 1986, but no agreement was reached.
On 7th August, 1986, the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 4th November, 1986, in Navan. An earlier hearing was postponed
at the request of one of the parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Company allows for a rest-allowance of 14.5%. It
became clear, from the studies carried out by the
Union's Industrial Engineer that this is completely
inadequate. The rest-allowance should be 43%.
(Details of studies supplied to the Court).
(ii) During the negotiations it became clear that the
Company was not using the latest I.L.O. recommended
rest-allowances. There was a big difference between
the sides and the Union approached the negotiations
with the intention of being willing to settle for a
'middle-ground' position. The Company did not make a
similar effort to reach a settlement.
(iii) The Union's claim must be looked at in the context of
an underground mining operation. In such a case
adequate rest-allowances are of the utmost
importance. Where they are inadequate they can be
conducive to creating health and safety problems.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The installation of swellex bolts is physically easier
than the installation of conventional rockbolts because
it is more mechanised. There has been no environmental
or physical deterioration in the task since the
commencement of operations. In fact, there have been
significant improvements.
(b) When considering the 'rest-allowance' of 14% already
built into the standard, it must be remembered that
bonus is applied to one hour per day travelling and one
half hour per day lunch break, which in itself
constitutes rest time. This gives a total of 20.75% of
a shift as rest time.
(c) In a study of the rockbolting crews in June, 1985, the
crews achieved performances of 128% of standard. If
there was anything wrong with either the standard or
the rest allowance such performances could not be
achieved.
(d) The hourly bonus earnings of the workers have increased
since the Swellex bolts were introduced. In addition
these workers have a generous shift allowance and have
gross yearly earnings in excess of #22,000.
(e) The Company's rest allowances compare favourably with
those applying in the mining industry. Any concession
of this claim would have detrimental knock-on effects
for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that both sides agree that the introduction of
Swellex bolts has not had any impact on the work of the claimants.
Accordingly the question of revised rest allowances for
rockbolting crews is a separate issue unrelated to the use of the
new bolts. The Court also notes that, despite the studies made by
reference to ILO Guidelines, a wide divergence of views still
exists between the parties as to the rest allowances which should
apply. The Court recommends that in order to address this
question - which has implications for bonus earnings - both sides
should obtain information from the ILO and other sources as to the
work/rest periods ratio applying to similar workers in similar
undertakings elsewhere. Such information should assist the
parties in establishing whether the arrangements in Tara Mines are
in line with good practice elsewhere.
In the meantime, the Company should implement its offer to
increase the present rest allowance from 14.5% to 15.7%.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___8th__January,__1987. ______________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
CD86654 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10893
CC86101 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10893
PARTIES: TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim that the standards used by the Company to cover the
installation of swellex bolts are not correct.
Background:
2. This claim concerns twenty-four workers employed by the
Company in the Miner 1 grade. These workers are also referred to
as rock-bolters. In January, 1985, the Company introduced a new
method and type of roof support (Swellex-Bolts) in the Mine. In
May, 1985, following studies the Company compiled new standards
for the installation of the roof supports. The Union had an
examination of the standards carried out. Arising from this
examination the Union is claiming that the overall standard which
the Company has provided for rest-allowance is not correct. The
Company rejects this claim.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
15th January, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held
on 15th April and 6th August, 1986, but no agreement was reached.
On 7th August, 1986, the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 4th November, 1986, in Navan. An earlier hearing was postponed
at the request of one of the parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Company allows for a rest-allowance of 14.5%. I
became clear, from the studies carried out by the
Union's Industrial Engineer that this is completely
inadequate. The rest-allowance should be 43%.
(Details of studies supplied to the Court).
(ii) During the negotiations it became clear that the
Company was not using the latest I.L.O. recommended
rest-allowances. There was a big difference between
the sides and the Union approached the negotiations
with the intention of being willing to settle for a
'middle-ground' position. The Company did not make a
similar effort to reach a settlement.
(iii) The Union's claim must be looked at in the context of
an underground mining operation. In such a case
adequate rest-allowances are of the utmost
importance. Where they are inadequate they can be
conducive to creating health and safety problems.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The installation of swellex bolts is physically easier
than the installation of conventional rockbolts because
it is more mechanised. There has been no environmental
or physical deterioration in the task since the
commencement of operations. In fact, there have been
significant improvements.
(b) When considering the 'rest-allowance' of 14% already
built into the standard, it must be remembered that
bonus is applied to one hour per day travelling and one
half hour per day lunch break, which in itself
constitutes rest time. This gives a total of 20.75% of
a shift as rest time.
(c) In a study of the rockbolting crews in June, 1985, the
crews achieved performances of 128% of standard. If
there was anything wrong with either the standard or
the rest allowance such performances could not be
achieved.
(d) The hourly bonus earnings of the workers have increased
since the Swellex bolts were introduced. In addition
these workers have a generous shift allowance and have
gross yearly earnings in excess of #22,000.
(e) The Company's rest allowances compare favourably with
those applying in the mining industry. Any concession
of this claim would have detrimental knock-on effects
for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that both sides agree that the introduction of
Swellex bolts has not had any impact on the work of the claimants.
Accordingly the question of revised rest allowances for
rockbolting crews is a separate issue unrelated to the use of the
new bolts. The Court also notes that, despite the studies made by
reference to ILO Guidelines, a wide divergence of views still
exists between the parties as to the rest allowances which should
apply. The Court recommends that in order to address this
question - which has implications for bonus earnings - both sides
should obtain information from the ILO and other sources as to the
work/rest periods ratio applying to similar workers in similar
undertakings elsewhere. Such information should assist the
parties in establishing whether the arrangements in Tara Mines are
in line with good practice elsewhere.
In the meantime, the Company should implement its offer to
increase the present rest allowance from 14.5% to 15.7%.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___8th__January,__1987. ______________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman