Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93465 Case Number: LCR14290 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION |
Funding of Income Continuance Plan.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds for concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93465 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14290
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TARA MINES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Funding of Income Continuance Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Income Continuance Plan covering hourly paid workers at
Tara Mines was first introduced in 1983. The dispute concerns
funding of the Income Continuance Plan for the hourly paid
employees. Unlike the salary paid employees whose scheme is
totally funded by the Company hourly paid employees fund their own
scheme. The Unions claim that the Company should provide a
minimum 50% funding of the premium involved for hourly paid
workers. The Company reject the Unions' claim. Since 1983 the
premium has risen from .66% to its present 8% of basic pay. There
are over 50 employees receiving long term disability benefit under
the plan, most of whom are hourly paid. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and, following a conciliation
conference, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 4th August, 1993. The Court investigated the dispute
on 20th September, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1983 the premium for the Income Continuance Plan for
hourly paid employees has risen from .66% to 8.0% of basic
salary. This is paid for entirely by the hourly paid
employees while the premium of the salaried employees is paid
in total by the Company. There are approximately 50 hourly
paid employees in receipt of long term disability benefit, 2/3
of whom are medically unfit due to accidents and injuries
sustained at the workplace. There are only 5 or 6 salary paid
employees in receipt of benefit under the plan. The Company
has been financially successful since 1988 and it is the
Unions' contention that the Company should provide a minimum
50% funding of the premium involved for hourly paid workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has never agreed to fund the hourly paid
employees insurance and its position in this regard has not
changed. In 1991, the Company enhanced pension benefits for
hourly paid employees bearing all costs involved. While the
Company has been financially successful in the last few years,
the outlook for metal prices is bad.
2. There are at present over 50 personnel in receipt of
Income Continuance at a cost of #3.7m, with other claims
outstanding. The current premium is #200,000 per annum and
the claim submitted is approximately #140,000 which the
Company cannot afford.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds for concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________
12th December, 1993. Deputy Chairman
C.O'N./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.