Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92610 Case Number: LCR13953 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AUGHINISH ALUMINA LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions, on behalf of fitters, for the payment of the first phase of a grading/flexibility payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions recommends.
1. That the #10 per week in respect of grade 5(b) and the #15 per
week for achievement of grade 5(c) of the Company proposals be
paid to each member of the staff qualifying for such grades on
the nominated dates.
2. That pending the realisation of the full savings under the
Grading/Flexibility Agreement the Company pay to the staff
concerned #14 per week. This payment to be made with effect
from 7th September, 1992.
3. That the balance of #11 per week be paid to these employees on
the realisation of the full savings arising from the
implementation by all the groups involved of the
Grading/Flexibility Agreement.
That on acceptance of this recommendation the parties fully
co-operate to implement the proposed changes as quickly as
possible with a view to the security of the employment and the
future of the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92610 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13953
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AUGHINISH ALUMINA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions, on behalf of fitters, for the payment of
the first phase of a grading/flexibility payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been involved in discussions on a grading and
flexibility scheme with three different groups of workers since
1989. The groups are divided as follows:
(i) Instrument/Electrical Technicians - Grade 5
(Represented by T.E.E.U.).
(ii) Fitters - Grade 5 (Represented by T.E.E.U. and
A.E.E.U.).
(iii) General Operatives - Process Workers Grades 1-4
(Represented by S.I.P.T.U.).
The instrument/electrical technicians have concluded an agreement
with the Company which provides for a pay increase of #50 per week
in two phases plus a lump sum of #1,000. A similar agreement was
negotiated with the fitters providing for a first phase increase
of #25 p.w. (Grade 5(a)) with a mechanism for progressing to #50
p.w. (Grades 5(b), 5(c)). The workers concerned have not yet
received the increase because the Company has not yet reached
final agreement with the general operatives. The Unions are
claiming payment of the first phase of #25 retrospective to May,
1992. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th September, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on the 25th September, 1992 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 30th September,
1992. The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 18th
November, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company and the Unions concluded an agreement on
grading and flexibility in respect of fitters in May, 1992.
It provided for fitters sharing work with instrument
technicians and general operatives as outlined in the
flexibility options list (details supplied to the Court). The
agreement also covered numbers of fitters to be declared
redundant, a fitters progression model which would provide
increases in basic pay as follows: Grade 5A - #25 p.w., Grade
5B - #35 p.w., Grade 5C - #50 p.w., and lump sum payments.
The Company confirmed, following a request for clarification
from the Unions, that the agreement was a stand alone one and
that the first phase of #25 p.w. would be paid from May, 1992.
Management also confirmed that, in the event of agreement not
being reached with general workers, the Company would seek
alternative means of funding the agreement.
2. The Company has reneged on its commitment to implement the
agreement from May, 1992. The Unions have at all times
insisted that craft parity be maintained. The fitters,
despite grave reservations, have allowed craft work to be
shared with general workers. The savings accruing from the
agreement with fitters were never measured and were not a
contentious issue at negotiations. Management has now changed
its position because of problems with the general workers in
relation to the allocation of savings generated through
flexibility/productivity. The Company gave a commitment to
the Unions that the #25 first phase of the agreement would be
paid to fitters from May, 1992. It must now honour this
commitment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Grading/flexibility is a revision of work practices which
generates savings necessary to fund the wage increases on
offer. The revised work practices involve sharing
electrical/instrument tasks and primarily sharing work with
general operatives which involves reducing fitters' numbers
for 104 to 92. While agreement was reached in May, 1992 on
the reduction in numbers, the major portion of revised work
practices has not been implemented by fitters because of the
training required for electrical/instrument skills (due to
commence in January, 1993) and the fact that an agreement is
not yet concluded with S.I.P.T.U. on the sharing of work with
general workers. Consequently the number of fitters on plant
maintenance has not yet been reduced to 92 and less than 50%
of the agreed savings required to fund the #25 increase have
been generated to date. The Company is not in a position to
pay increases before the necessary savings are generated.
2. The Company never agreed to pay the increase from a
specific date or pay the increase prior to the generation of
the necessary savings. The Company did agree to pay each
group of workers for annual cost savings when these savings
would be forthcoming. Although the Company has an agreement
to pay an increase of #25 after full savings have been
achieved, Management was willing to consider a proposal made
at conciliation from the Industrial Relations Officer that an
element of the increase (#14 p.w.) would be paid which
reflected partial savings to date. Payment of additional
increments 5(b) and 5(c) under the Fitter Progression Model
are dependent on the #25 under the grading/flexibility
agreement (5(a)) with 92 fitters on plant maintenance being
achieved. In an effort to compromise the Company is,
additionally, agreeable to pay the #10.00 p.w. under 5(b) and
the #15 p.w. under 5(c) to each fitter qualifying for such
grades on the nominated dates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions recommends.
1. That the #10 per week in respect of grade 5(b) and the #15 per
week for achievement of grade 5(c) of the Company proposals be
paid to each member of the staff qualifying for such grades on
the nominated dates.
2. That pending the realisation of the full savings under the
Grading/Flexibility Agreement the Company pay to the staff
concerned #14 per week. This payment to be made with effect
from 7th September, 1992.
3. That the balance of #11 per week be paid to these employees on
the realisation of the full savings arising from the
implementation by all the groups involved of the
Grading/Flexibility Agreement.
That on acceptance of this recommendation the parties fully
co-operate to implement the proposed changes as quickly as
possible with a view to the security of the employment and the
future of the Company.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
12th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.