Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92466 Case Number: LCR13817 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
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__________________________________________________________________
CD92466 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13817
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TARA MINES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
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 Outokumpu 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 Union is seeking a 3%
increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. based on the
Company's performance during the past twelve years, and the major
contribution of the workers to the achievement.
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 believe 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
23rd March, 1992 and a conciliation conference was held on the
16th July, 1992, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of August, 1992 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Navan, on the 1st
October, 1992, (the earliest date convenient to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim for the award of the 3% of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. is based on the productivity (ore-mined and
concentrates) and profits enjoyed by the Company.
In 1987, the Union was asked to concede heavily to ensure the
future viability of Tara Mines.This resulted in the loss of
170 jobs. Workers were promised a share in the future profits
of the Company. From 1987 to 1991 inclusive, the Company has
produced an increased tonnage (+7%) with a workforce reduced
by 20%. The nett profit for these years totals approximately
$78m, making it one of the most successful operations in the
Outokumpu Group. The P.E.S.P. 3% affords the Company an
opportunity to reward the workers' exceptional performance
since 1987.
2. As stated at conciliation the Union has no difficulty
regarding the introduction of new technology. However, it is
not prepared to accept the Company's proposal that the new
technology be introduced without consequential claims from the
Union as this would be tantamount to signing a blank cheque.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has at all stages been prepared to negotiate
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Union must pursue their
claim for an increase within the letter and spirit of Clause
3, and on the basis of proposals tabled by the Company.
2. 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.
3. The workers already share in the Company's profit by means
of bonuses paid on tonnage output and productivity.
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
___________________
28th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.