Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90598 Case Number: AD9060 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. S.T. 221/90 concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings arising from the importation of coins.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions oral and
written of the parties does not consider there are grounds for
amending the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and
accordingly the Court rejects the appeal.
It is the view of the Court that the Bank should as far as
possible maximise the production of coin and should take such
measures as are necessary and practicable to obviate the necessity
to import coin.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90598 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6090
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. S.T. 221/90 concerning a claim for compensation
for loss of earnings arising from the importation of coins.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. This dispute concerns 8 employees of the mint section of
the Central Bank in Sandyford. The mint of the Central Bank
has been in operation since 1976. There are 6 machines and
other equipment in the area which convert coin blanks into
finished coin on coin pressing machines. There are 7 machine
and general assistants and a working chargehand under the
supervision of a machine and general assistant supervisor.
2. Enabling legislation for the introduction of the #1 coin
was enacted in April, 1990 and the date for its introduction
was 1st June, 1990. The amount of new coinage required was
over 50 million #1 coins. The bank claimed that all of the
coins could not be produced internally given the short lead in
time to introduction. It was proposed to produce the majority
in Sandyford and the balance would be imported from the U.K.
mint.
3. It was initially planned to import 20 million #1 coins but
30 million #1 coins were eventually imported. The Bank
claimed that this increase was due to industrial relations and
production difficulties. The Union had earlier undertaken to
seek safeguards against the importation of the #1 coin in so
far as it would impact on its members' earning capacity and to
seek compensation if it did arise.
4. Since February, 1990 local negotiations have been taking
place on the introduction of the #1 coin. A 6% increase with
effect from 12th June, 1990 was accepted by the Union in
return for co-operation with the introduction of the #1 coin
and the general coin reform programme. The Union however
reserved the right to seek compensation for loss of earnings
and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation.
5. The Rights Commissioner having investigated the dispute on
11th September, 1990 issued the following recommendation on
28th September, 1990.
"RECOMMENDATION
The Bank's offer of 6% increase to all machine and
general assistants in the mint in return for "full
co-operation and flexibility" including the running of
the machines through breaks was accepted by the members
concerned. The fact that the original #20 million
estimate was increased to #30 million is not sufficient
grounds to warrant a payment of compensation on top of
the 6% increase accepted which is ongoing and naturally
will increase in money value with time."
In these circumstances I recommend that the Union's
claim fails.
The Union rejected this Recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing was heard on 28th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union was informed that there was only to be an 8 week
lead in period to the introduction of the #1 coin. The
workers are seeking compensation for loss of work which would
have been theirs had the preparatory work been put in train to
ensure that the minting had been done at an earlier date
(details supplied to the Court).
2. In order to see the concern of the workers in a proper
perspective it is necessary to point out that in 1983, the
mint Department came to a standstill for 12 months and 5
workers were transferred to other areas. This situation
lasted up to 1986 and the workers are concerned that this
situation should not arise again. This is also at variance
with the Management claim that it is normal to buy from other
mints at times of extraordinary demand. No work was given to
the Sandyford mint from other countries during this time.
This claim is a reflection of the workers' concern to secure
their jobs in the mint department and also reflects the impact
of the practice of importing coin.
3. It must be stressed that the 6% referred to in the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation was paid in relation to the #1
coin only and co-operation on other matters. There was never
a concession that importation could continue on a ongoing
basis. The Rights Commissioner in his deliberations did not
take account of the fact that it took the bank a period of 7
weeks to respond to the initial representations and during
this period between 9 to 10 million coin could have been
produced.
4. The workers have twice offered to stagger their holidays
in order to increase production but this has been rejected by
the Bank. After the Rights Commissioners Recommendation the
Bank informed the Union that it was to import 11 million
copper coin. In addition the person who makes the dyes has
not been involved in making dyes for the last 3 months. In
the light of the above it appears that the Bank have taken a
conscious decision to put themselves in a position where they
can justify the importation of coin.
5. At this stage in the context of the Programme for National
Recovery a policy with regard to the importation of coins must
be resolved in order to protect and expand Irish jobs.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A major coin reform programme was embarked upon this year
with the introduction of the #1 coin. Pound notes are being
withdrawn from circulation and within a relatively short
period of time the Bank is introducing at least 50 million #1
coins into the system. Initially it was proposed to mint the
majority of these in Sandyford but a combination of production
and industrial relations problems allied to the fact that the
enabling legislation was only enacted in early April meant
that the imported portion of the initial requirement had to be
increased.
2. The Bank's primary responsibility at all times is to
ensure that adequate supplies of coins are available to meet
the requirements of the banks, the business community and the
public at large. In this context importation will always be
necessary from time to time. The Bank has however sought to
mint as much of its coinage requirements as possible in
Sandyford. Finished coins are imported regularly to:
- meet unexpected surges in demand
- supply coin the mint area cannot produce for
technical reasons and
- ensure efficient production runs in the mint area.
This commitment of the Bank to produce as much coin
domestically as is feasible must be seen in the light of the
difficulty in predicting precisely what the demand will be.
Demand is dependent on changes in the rate of inflation and
adjustments in the pricing structures of goods and services.
Moreover the introduction of a new coin brings with it complex
interactions affecting the levels of demand of all other
coinage in circulation.
3. In no circumstances could present staff and equipment meet
the entire requirements of a recoinage programme. The
feasibility of expanding the mint area was examined but the
cost was prohibitive bearing in mind that the peak of the
recoinage programme would only last for a number of years
leaving the Bank at that stage with surplus capacity. This is
a situation which exists in most other E.C. mints and
therefore the bank would be unable to use its own surplus
capacity to meet other E.C. mints requirements.
4. The Bank refutes the Union's contention that the
importation of the #1 coin has been detrimental to the
earnings of staff. A 6% increase was paid for co-operation on
the #1 coin and recoinage programme. In addition there has
been a marked increase in overtime payments (details supplied
to the Court) and it can be reasonably expected that the mint
areas annual work programme will continue to generate
additional earnings for some time.
DECISION:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions oral and
written of the parties does not consider there are grounds for
amending the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and
accordingly the Court rejects the appeal.
It is the view of the Court that the Bank should as far as
possible maximise the production of coin and should take such
measures as are necessary and practicable to obviate the necessity
to import coin.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
14th December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.