Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93262 Case Number: LCR14149 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Dispute concerning the implementation of an Agreement under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. In view of the difference between the parties as to the
interpretation of the Agreement in question the Court considers
that an equitable way of resolving the dispute is as follows:-
(A) the Court has satisfied itself that the matter of the
radios was an important factor in the Agreement,
confirmed by the use of the two words "current" and
"future" in it.
(B) The craftsmen should now agree to operate the radios
immediately without prejudice to the fact that under the
terms of the Procedures Agreement the Unions would be
free to make a claim if they see fit.
(C) The Company agree to pay the 3% P.E.S.P. from the agreed
date.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93262 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14149
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 AND ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of an Agreement under
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Following lengthy negotiations in the Labour Relations
Commission, the parties signed an Agreement on the 10th March,
1992 for the implementation of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. In
return for a 3% increase in pay from 1st July, 1992, the
Unions would agree, inter alia, to the immediate
implementation of a procedural agreement.
2. The Company set about arranging the introduction of radio
communications equipment in the mines. The equipment had been
in place for some time but had not been operated because of a
failure to agree terms. The radios were scheduled for
introduction on 29th March, 1993. The Unions informed the
Company that under the terms of the new Procedural Agreement 3
months advance consultation would be required. The Company
argued that the consultation requirement applied only to new
technology and not to current technology which is also
mentioned in the Agreement. The parties failed to agree and
the Company refused to pay the 3% increase due under the terms
of Clause 3.
3. The dispute was referred back to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 14th
April, 1993. The Unions argued that the radios constituted
new technology as far as the workers were concerned and that
the Company was obliged to pay the 3% pay increase even before
the Procedural Agreement came into place. The Company was
willing to continue the consultation process immediately and
pay the 3% increase provided the workers operated the radios
from 29th March, 1993. The Company argued that another Union
had accepted the Company's position on the matter and that the
Unions were free to make a claim under the terms of the
Procedure Agreement.
4. No agreement was possible between the parties and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 14th April, 1993
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place in Navan on 29th June,
1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions want the Company to fulfil its obligations
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. as agreed and allow the
Procedure Agreement to be implemented to full effect. Under
the terms of the Agreement the Company must allow 3 months for
consultation prior to the implementation of new technology.
Had the Company adhered to the terms of the freely negotiated
Agreement the 3 months period would have expired by now.
2. The introduction of the radios has long-term productivity
implications for the workers. These are different from its
effect on other categories of worker (details supplied). This
has been recognised by the Company which has agreed the
involvement of the Irish Productivity Centre to monitor the
implication of the usage of the radios by craftsmen. The pay
terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. must be implemented before
the process takes place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to agreement being reached with the craft Unions the
Company clearly stated and understood that any agreement was
contingent on the immediate use of radios. Similar Procedure
Agreements were concluded with two other Unions and in each
case it was clearly understood that the Agreement would
include the immediate use of radios where appropriate.
2. The 3% increase in pay and the 9 months retrospection were
all contingent on the acceptance and immediate use of radios.
The consensus achieved in the protracted negotiations is
seriously put at risk by the craft Unions refusal to honour
the undertaking on the use of radios.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the difference between the parties as to the
interpretation of the Agreement in question the Court considers
that an equitable way of resolving the dispute is as follows:-
(A) the Court has satisfied itself that the matter of the
radios was an important factor in the Agreement,
confirmed by the use of the two words "current" and
"future" in it.
(B) The craftsmen should now agree to operate the radios
immediately without prejudice to the fact that under the
terms of the Procedures Agreement the Unions would be
free to make a claim if they see fit.
(C) The Company agree to pay the 3% P.E.S.P. from the agreed
date.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.