Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89838 Case Number: LCR12736 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims for (a) an increase in differential payable to six operatives employed at the face head at Knocknacran, and (b) compensation in respect of loss of earnings for an operative who was made redundant.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
finds as follows:-
1. The claim for Miners Differentials in Knockrahan.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Compensation for a Worker.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89838 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12736
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES PLC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) an increase in differential payable to six
operatives employed at the face head at Knocknacran, and
(b) compensation in respect of loss of earnings for an operative
who was made redundant.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is changing from two underground mines at
Drumgoosat and Drumgill to an open cast mine at Knocknacran. A
Comprehensive Agreement was concluded between the Company and the
Union in February, 1988. The agreement provided for a number of
changes in work practices, manning levels, redundancies and
compensation for loss of earnings. As no agreement was reached on
the above mentioned claims the matters were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 21st September, 1989.
A conciliation conference was held on 1st November, 1989. As no
agreement was reached both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Cavan on 18th December, 1989.
(A) BACKGROUND-DIFFERENTIALS:
3. The Comprehensive agreement included a provision that
differentials in the new mine would be within the existing
differential structure within the Company, which range from #2.03
per week to #40.26 per week. In September, 1989 the Company
offered to pay a differential of #30 per week to six face
operatives i.e. the driller, the loader, the two dump truck
drivers and two ancillary operatives. This offer was rejected by
the Union who are seeking a differential of #40.26 per week.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer does not reflect the crucial role of
the miner in the new production process, the massive increase
in productivity involved in the changed working arrangements,
(details supplied to the Court).
2. To place the workers here concerned on the category 1 rate
i.e. #40.26 per week, would recognise the crucial job of the
miner in the overall differential structure of the Company.
Such a grading would be the most appropriate place for the
miner and would reflect the range of duties involved, the
skill and critical role they must play in the whole of the
Company's operations.
3. To illustrate the difficulty of the Company's proposal the
role of the primary shovel driver should be considered.
Previously he enjoyed a differential of #34.09 per week in
addition to underground and shift rates. He is now expected
to perform extra duties and increase production for a
differential of #30 per week which is #4.09 less than he
previously enjoyed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The differentials offered by the Company are excellent by
comparison with the Company differentials structure. The
offer was made on the basis of acceptance by the operatives
concerned. The Company cannot improve on that figure.
2. When the differential of #30 per week is added to a basic
of #173.51 and in turn added to a proven achievable bonus of
#1.47 per hour or #58.80 per 40 hours, this yields a figure of
#6.55 per hour, certainly one of the highest if not the
highest rate of hourly earnings in the industry for a standard
week.
3. The Company is satisfied that the remuneration package
including differentials not alone is excellent by comparison
with other company remuneration and rates in the quarrying
industry, but bears favourable comparison with the better
companies within industry as a whole. Consequently the Court
is requested to reject the claim.
(B) BACKGROUND-Compensation for a Worker:
6. The Comprehensive Agreement also provided for compensation for
loss of earnings. The Company, in agreement with the Union, set
aside a figure of #180,000 to be divided between 39 named miners;
35 received #5,000 each and 4 received #1,250 each.
7. The worker here concerned was made redundant and received a
redundancy lump sum. The Union is claiming compensation of #5,000
in respect of loss of earnings in addition to the redundancy lump
sum. The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker here concerned is in an anomalous position in
that he has over 13 years' service, most of which was spent in
the mines. He was never categorised as a permanent miner and
as a consequence was not included in the underground
compensation payments for the miners category.
2. No account was taken of his position as he was expected to
retain his job in the factory. He was subsequently made
redundant and the Union considers that he should be paid
#5,000 compensation in addition to his redundancy payment.
The Company has consistently refused to make any concession in
this case although some others have received both payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the terms of the Comprehensive
Agreement with regard to the closure of the mines and the
commencement of operations at Knocknacran made provision for
compensation in respect of loss of earnings on deployment.
2. Agreement was reached with the Union as to which employees
should participate in the share from the fund and the manner
of distribution was approved at a full meeting of the members
concerned.
3. The claimant did not come within the categories stated in
the preceeding paragraphs. He, in fact, became redundant and
had the agreed redundancy terms applied to him.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
finds as follows:-
1. The claim for Miners Differentials in Knockrahan.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Compensation for a Worker.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___________________
5th February, 1990.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.