Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90212 Case Number: LCR12906 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARA MINES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a manning agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties notes that of the five point proposals put by the
Company on the re-introduction of a manning level of 52 in the
mill processing section, the Union accepts points 1, 4 and 5. The
Court makes the following recommendations accordingly with a view
to resolving the outstanding issues:-
Point 2, - (4 cycle shift)
Paragraph 9 of the notes on "Plant Operation" set out in the
1987 Plant Agreement should be amended to read as follows:
"The helpers duties will be extended to include two
additional jobs learned and being available to cover
these jobs if they are unmanned due to absences after the
call out time.
(Absences referred to are for periods in excess of two
days)."
Point 3. (2 shift)
Load out operators should agree to handle reagents on the
afternoon shift in the absence of a requirement to load
trains.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90212 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12906
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a manning agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company began production in 1977 with 66 workers. In 1982
the Company and Union negotiated a training and flexibility
agreement and reduced the workforce to 62. In 1984 the call-out
procedures agreement for use in the event of an operator being
absent for work was revised. In 1986 the Company was acquired by
the Finnish state mining company, Outokumpu. In 1987 the Company
proposed a cost cutting plan and agreement was reached on the
reduction of manning levels to 52. This involved the use of a 9
man shift with 9 man cover on a 4 cycle seven day shift basis.
The agreed manning level of 52 was never achieved in practice and
absences were covered by overtime working amongst the shift crews.
In March, 1989 the Company proposed to reduce manning levels to 45
with the introduction of a 7 man shift and greater flexibility.
These proposals were rejected by Union who sought to have the 52
man agreement fully implemented. No agreement was reached at
local level and the matter was referred on 25th September, 1989 to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The first
conciliation conference was held on 27th October, 1989 and the
Union and the Company agreed to a proposal to temporarily increase
manning levels to 52 so that meaningful negotiations could
proceed. In January, 1990 the Company brought the I.R.O. and the
Union officials to Finland to visit other mines operated by the
parent Company. On return from Finland a series of conciliation
conferences were held on the proposal to reduce manning levels to
45. No agreement was reached on the matter and the Company gave
the Union a choice:-
(a) negotiate a 45 man agreement at an acceptable cost to the
Company within a tight timetable,
or
(b) agree a 52 man manning level on the understanding that
this number will be maintained at all times.
The Union response was to accept the 52 manning level option. A
series of conciliation conferences were held to implement the 52
man manning level. The Company put forward the following
proposals:-
(1) Manning Levels:
52 men will man the Mill. The Company will maintain
these numbers at all times.
(2) 4 Cycle Shift:
The Company will maintain a full compliment of 9 men on
each shift. Absence to be covered by the temporary
appointment of a Day Worker to the Shift Helpers position
and the Company will re-allocate personnel as required
within the Shift operation.
(3) 2 Shifts:
Loadout Operators will work in the Reagent area as
required and will facilitate the Shipping operation as
directed. A suitably trained Day Worker will be used to
cover absences.
(4) There are now sufficient Day Workers to cover all tasks
required.
(5) If the manning levels fall below 52 men, the number will
be made up by the appointment of a Day Worker in a
temporary capacity.
The Union rejected the Company's proposal and the matter was
referred on 1st May, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court
which was held on 4th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Union accepted a return to 52 man mannings levels
it was under the current agreements without any new
conditions. The 1987 agreement on 52 man manning levels in
conjunction with the call-out procedures and training scheme
agreement should be firmly put in place, with the
advertising of positions to be practiced at all times in the
future. These agreements have never been fully implemented
and if changes are required they can be addressed through the
normal procedures once the agreements are in operation.
2. The Union does not have a difficulty in relation to
proposal 1, 4, and 5. However proposal 2 seeks to change the
whole approach to the job structure set out in the 1987
agreement. Under custom and practice long established
absences of the nature referred to are filled by temporary
appointment following advertisement. While this process is
being followed the call-out procedure addresses the situation.
The manning agreements clearly identify operating positions
and the Company proposal seeks to disregard job designation
which is fundamental to the workers.
3. As regard to proposal 3 in relation to 2 shifts the Union
would have no difficulty with such absences being covered by
the temporary promotion of a suitably trained day worker,
following advertisement. If the additional
inter-changeability and flexibility required by the Company is
provided it would need to be complemented by an improved rate
of remuneration.
4. The working environment is extremely tense now. The
workers see the Company displaying no respect for the current
agreements and holding no regard for procedures or custom and
practice. The current agreements should be fully implemented
and worked prior to any changes beyond that already agreed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company holds that 45 is the proper manning level for
the mill but is being forced by the Union to implement a
manning level of 52. Now that the Company is reverting to a
manning level of 52 unrealistic obstacles are being presented
to prevent the Company from operating the 52 man manning level
in a proper and efficient manner.
2. In relation to Company proposal number 2 in regard to the
four cycle shift, the Union's position is contrary to the
spirit and content of the 1987 agreement. This agreement
stated that shift helpers would be required to cover for shift
operators as directed. In the 1987 agreement the Company also
agreed to apply the senior operator basic rate to the shift
helpers to compensate them for this arrangement.
3. In relation to Company proposal number 3 in regard to 2
shifts, the Union has refused to accept, contrary to the
agreement of April, 1987, that 2 cycle shift loadout
operators would work in the reagent area when no trains are
scheduled. There can be no valid justification for this
especially since reagents is for this category a second job
learned under the 1982 training scheme and carries an
increment.
4. The Company believes that the Union's objective, in
addition to securing guarantees on 52 man manning levels, is
to continue the situation with regard to the need for overtime
working.
5. Prohibitive demands by the Union for agreement on a
re-organisation package have given the Company no other
option but to revert to the original agreed 52 man manning
levels. The Union's stance with regard to the implementation
of the 52 man manning level is a further difficulty which the
Company cannot accept.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties notes that of the five point proposals put by the
Company on the re-introduction of a manning level of 52 in the
mill processing section, the Union accepts points 1, 4 and 5. The
Court makes the following recommendations accordingly with a view
to resolving the outstanding issues:-
Point 2, - (4 cycle shift)
Paragraph 9 of the notes on "Plant Operation" set out in the
1987 Plant Agreement should be amended to read as follows:
"The helpers duties will be extended to include two
additional jobs learned and being available to cover
these jobs if they are unmanned due to absences after the
call out time.
(Absences referred to are for periods in excess of two
days)."
Point 3. (2 shift)
Load out operators should agree to handle reagents on the
afternoon shift in the absence of a requirement to load
trains.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
8th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.