Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92411 Case Number: LCR13829 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH STEEL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning an increase in pay for operatives in the melt room.
Recommendation:
The Court has examined the written and verbal submissions of the
parties. In addition, the Court has inspected the working
environment of the claimants particularly having regard to the
unique nature of the Industry. Having carefully considered all
the arguments of the parties the Court concludes that the rates of
pay, having being established through job evaluation, cannot be
removed from that structure without disturbing other relationships
within the Company. The Court notes that the scheme was reviewed
previously under an Independent Chairman and revised accordingly
to take account of changes in the scheme since its inception.
The Court recommends that the scheme remain in full effect.
However, the Court also recommends that the strong arguments of
the workers in relation to heat and dust should be examined by the
job evaluation committee under an independent chairman
specifically in relation to the weighting of these factors within
the scheme to establish whether or not their influence has been
fully recognised.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92411 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13829
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH STEEL LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning an increase in pay for operatives in the
melt room.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 600 workers in the manufacture of
steel at their plant in Haulbowline, Co. Cork. The claim for
an increase in pay is on behalf of 64 workers in the
steelmaking (melt-shop) section of the Company. This is the
area where base metals are melted down as the first step in
the making of steel. The claim is for a 35% increase in pay
as compensation for the working conditions in the melt-shop.
The Union claims that the conditions are the most difficult in
the Company due to excessive dirt, heat and noise. The
Company has rejected the claim on the basis that some measure
of heat, noise and fume is inseparable from the steelmaking
process.
2. The working conditions in the melt-shop were discussed by
the parties in 1989. On 23rd May, 1990 a claim was submitted
for a 25% pay increase for workers in the melt-shop. This was
rejected by the Company and a 24 hour work stoppage took
place. Conditions in the melt shop were again discussed on
10th July, 1991.
3. An overall agreement on rationalisation proposals was
concluded with the workforce in December, 1991. This led to
job losses and increased productivity (details supplied). In
return the workers were compensated by a 21% increase in wages
over the period of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.). The issue of the working conditions of
the 64 melt shop workers had been ongoing and on 23rd March,
1992, the Union submitted a claim for an increase in wages of
35% over and above the terms of the rationalisation agreement
based on responsibility and working conditions.
4. The Company rejected the claim and from Saturday 4th
April, 1992, the workers imposed a ban on weekend overtime
working. This ban remained in place until the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on 23rd June, 1992. As no agreement was
reached, the Commission, with the consent of the paties,
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 14th July, 1992
for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Following the
conciliation conference the workers re-imposed the ban on
weekend overtime working. This led to the suspension of 4
workers on 6th July, 1992. Unofficial action began on 7th
July, 1992 ending on 13th July, 1992.
5. A Labour Court investigation took place on 22nd July,
1992. The Court visited the Company and inspected the work of
the claimants on 9th September, 1992 (the earliest possible
date due to the annual shutdown).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have sought, on numerous occasions over the
last 4 years, an improvement in their working conditions.
The workers are aware that steelmaking cannot be done without
heat, noise, dirt, fumes and gases. While they are an
accepted part of the process, the elements must be controlled
to an acceptable level. The workers are entitled to
reasonable and comfortable working conditions. Where this
will not or cannot be done, the workers are entitled to seek
compensation. The payment of "conditions" money is well
established in industry.
2. Since the early 1980's the Company has made new
installations of equipment and continuous improvements to the
efficiency of the melt-shop area. This has resulted in
increased output and productivity and a continuous
disimprovement in the conditions of work. Sales volume
figures have increased from 185,000 tonnes in 1985 to 313,000
tonnes in 1990. The workers received no extra payments for
the increased production. The Company has reneged on promises
to improve the workers' conditions of work (details supplied)
and to date the elements in dispute have not been reduced to
acceptable levels.
3. The Company is sympathetic to the workers' claim but fears
that concession would have repercussive effects. The Union
has assured the Company that no other department in Irish
Steel would serve a follow on claim.
4. The workers are frustrated by the Company's intransigence
in dealing with their claim. The workers feel that their
health and safety should be of paramount importance. The
recent rationalisation programme has left less workers to do
more work in ever deteriorating conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For the financial year to 30th June, 1992, the Company
made a loss of over #6 million. For the current year losses
of a similar magnitude are expected. The Company, like steel
making companies throughout the world, is experiencing
difficult trading conditions. It is further disadvantaged by
its location, relying on importing 65% of its raw materials
and exporting 90% of its finished production. Falling steel
prices can no longer be offset by State subvention (details
supplied). The Company can only control its internal costs
and labour is its most significant cost.
2. Rationalisation proposals agreed in December, 1991
provided for 90 voluntary redundancies and increased
flexibility and efficiencies. The workforce received
compensation of 21% over the period of P.E.S.P. The terms of
P.E.S.P. specifically exclude other cost increasing claims
during the currency of the agreement. The present claim was
not an issue during negotiations on the rationalisation
proposals.
3. The pay and grading of the workers in the Company was
devised in 1974. It was agreed that the structure would
subsume all claims in respect of special skills, working
conditions, responsibilities etc. Over the years almost all
jobs in the melt-shop have been upgraded (details supplied).
4. The Company has embarked on a major capital investment
programme to improve productivity and competitiveness and
enhance conditions in the melt-shop. The health and safety of
workers is of paramount importance in all areas of the
Company. Conditions in the melt-shop have been much improved
in recent years subject to normal budgetary constraints. In
addition external consultants have been engaged to investigate
and advise on improvements to the melt-shop environment. This
has resulted in a number of further changes. The nature of
the steel making process means that some measure of heat,
noise and fume is inevitable. The workers involved in the
claim are well paid and any further increase in labour costs
cannot be afforded by the Company. There is also a very real
likelihood of repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has examined the written and verbal submissions of the
parties. In addition, the Court has inspected the working
environment of the claimants particularly having regard to the
unique nature of the Industry. Having carefully considered all
the arguments of the parties the Court concludes that the rates of
pay, having being established through job evaluation, cannot be
removed from that structure without disturbing other relationships
within the Company. The Court notes that the scheme was reviewed
previously under an Independent Chairman and revised accordingly
to take account of changes in the scheme since its inception.
The Court recommends that the scheme remain in full effect.
However, the Court also recommends that the strong arguments of
the workers in relation to heat and dust should be examined by the
job evaluation committee under an independent chairman
specifically in relation to the weighting of these factors within
the scheme to establish whether or not their influence has been
fully recognised.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
4th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.