Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92344 Case Number: LCR13806 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS;THE CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS |
Implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the arguments both written and oral
made by the parties on the matter of the negotiation of Clause 3
of the P.E.S.P. in respect of this Company. In this case the
Company appears to accept that its performance warrants that a
claim may be made under the terms of the clause. What is solely
at issue are the terms under which concessions may be made.
Taking into account (1) the heading of the clause, (2) the
variable amounts provided for - 3% being specifically designated
as a maximum - and (3) the factors of which the parties are
required to take account - implications for competitiveness, need
for flexibility and change - the contribution made by employees to
such change, it seems quite clear to the Court that negotiations
are intended to take the form of a trade off between the parties
and that value of some sort would be given in exchange for
additional rates of pay or improvements in conditions conceded
under Clause 3.
Taken in conjunction with paragraph 5 it also seems clear that
concessions need not strictly balance, but it does follow that
counter claims made by the employer must to some reasonable degree
reflect in value the amount they intend to offer.
Whilst the Court has not had the benefit of detailed arguments on
the counter claims made by Tara Mines they do appear to out-weigh
the maximum benefit available to the workforce under Clause 3.
On the other hand, it is also the view of the Court that past
concessions made by the workforce, or the simple fact that the
Company is doing particularly well at present are not sufficient
reasons to warrant an adjustment under the terms of the Clause 3
without reference to provisos under which negotiations are to be
conducted.
Having regard to the particular case before it the Court
recommends that the parties resume negotiations taking into
account the above comments.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92344 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13806
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TARA MINES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
(The Craft Group of Unions)
SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. Tara Mines is part of the Outukumpu Group which operates a
Zinc/Lead mine at Navan, Co. Meath, employing approximately 780
workers. The second phase of the P.E.S.P. commenced for the
workers on the first of January, 1992. The Unions are seeking a
3% increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. (Local
Bargaining) with effect from 1/1/1992. The Company is seeking
concessions in return for the Clause 3 increase, including
co-operation with the implementation of current and future
technology, with no consequential claims, a decrease in
blasting-time from 30 minutes to 15 minutes, and a strict
adherence to existing agreements regarding time-keeping and
breaks. At present miners leave the mine 30 minutes before the
end of each shift, to allow blasting to take place. The Company
now believes that due to a change in blasting methods the miners
need only depart the mine 15 minutes before blasting (effectively
increasing mining-time by 15 minutes).
The Union's contention that the workers' commitment has already
earned the Clause 3 P.E.S.P. 3% increase is rejected by the
Company on the grounds that any increase should be negotiated
within the spirit of the P.E.S.P. and on the basis of the
Company's proposals.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the
9th March, 1992 and a conciliation conference was held on the 29th
April, 1992, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 11th June, 1992 in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute in Navan, on the first of October,
1992 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should pay the 3% increase as part of the
service pay commitment made by the Company in 1979, which it
has continually failed to implement. (This issue was pursued
at the Labour Relations Commission in April, 1991, and was
then deferred, to be pursued under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. The
claim for service pay was expressed as increments of 1% per
year of service).
2. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions as one of the
signatories to the P.E.S.P. are clear in their interpretation
of Clause 3:
"Clause 3 is an integrate part of the P.E.S.P. If the
enterprise is profitable and the increase can be found
without any impact on the competitiveness of the
employment, this in itself will be sufficient grounds to
sustain the claim. It is important to emphasise that
Clause 3 does not provide that the increase should be
introduced on a self-financing basis".
Tara Mines clearly comes under the ambit of these guidelines
having recorded pretax profits of over $40m in both 1990 and
1991.
3. The Company's proposal regarding the implementation of new
technology is totally unacceptable; the Union is available to
discuss the matter on its own merits.
4. Delaying blasting time by 15 minutes per day would give
rise to individual productivity far in excess of 3%, which is
out of the question in the context of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has at all stages indicated their willingness
to negotiate under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P., and this remains
the case.
2. At the request of the Craft Group of Unions, the Company
advanced proposals which gave an indication of the operational
efficiencies required by the Company, if negotiations were to
proceed under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company is still
prepared to negotiate on these proposals.
3. The Company believe that if the Unions wish to pursue
their claim for an increase of up to 3% they should do so
within the letter and spirit of Clause 3, and on the basis of
the proposals tabled by the Company.
4. During negotiations on the pay aspects of the P.E.S.P.,
leading finally to the pay agreement, I.C.T.U. requested the
inclusion of a provision for Local Bargaining.
Extracts from the text of Clause 3 of the agreement state:
(i) "Exceptionally employers and trade unions may negotiate
further changes in rates of pay...",
(ii) "...negotiations under this clause will take full account
of the implications for competitiveness, the need for
flexibility and change and the contribution made by the
employees to such change...".
These extracts clearly imply that changes in rates of pay must
be negotiated, leading to give and take, trade-off between the
parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the arguments both written and oral
made by the parties on the matter of the negotiation of Clause 3
of the P.E.S.P. in respect of this Company. In this case the
Company appears to accept that its performance warrants that a
claim may be made under the terms of the clause. What is solely
at issue are the terms under which concessions may be made.
Taking into account (1) the heading of the clause, (2) the
variable amounts provided for - 3% being specifically designated
as a maximum - and (3) the factors of which the parties are
required to take account - implications for competitiveness, need
for flexibility and change - the contribution made by employees to
such change, it seems quite clear to the Court that negotiations
are intended to take the form of a trade off between the parties
and that value of some sort would be given in exchange for
additional rates of pay or improvements in conditions conceded
under Clause 3.
Taken in conjunction with paragraph 5 it also seems clear that
concessions need not strictly balance, but it does follow that
counter claims made by the employer must to some reasonable degree
reflect in value the amount they intend to offer.
Whilst the Court has not had the benefit of detailed arguments on
the counter claims made by Tara Mines they do appear to out-weigh
the maximum benefit available to the workforce under Clause 3.
On the other hand, it is also the view of the Court that past
concessions made by the workforce, or the simple fact that the
Company is doing particularly well at present are not sufficient
reasons to warrant an adjustment under the terms of the Clause 3
without reference to provisos under which negotiations are to be
conducted.
Having regard to the particular case before it the Court
recommends that the parties resume negotiations taking into
account the above comments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
23rd October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.