Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95727 Case Number: LCR15105 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of 4 mill operators for an increase in their rate of pay.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and the
background to the negotiations and agreement on rationalisation.
The Court has concluded from the Company's submission and the
other background documentation submitted at the hearing that the
claimants were compensated under the terms of that agreement and
that no further compensation is warranted.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95727 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15105
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
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 4 mill operators for an increase in their
rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim refers back to an agreement, reached in January,
1995, which relates to mill rationalisation. The agreement
provided for a reduction in manning levels, from 52 to 32, of
hourly-paid mill personnel. However, the number on 2-cycle shift
was unchanged at 6. Increases in pay were granted to all remaining
employees, based on an evaluation carried out for the Labour
Relations Commission by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) whose
report was accepted in principle by both parties. Those on 2-cycle
shift received an increase of 7.5%. Two further redundancies
occurred in the load out/reagent area in August, 1995, reducing to
4 the number of workers on the remaining 2-cycle shift. The Union
claims that the remaining 4 should receive a further increase of
2.5% because of additional burdens placed on them. The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that the increase under the
agreement on mill rationalisation took account of a further
reduction of 2 workers and that the 7.5% increase was agreed only on
that basis. The Union argued that the concession of the 7.5%
increase was based on cost-savings arising from the elimination of
overtime and additional operational efficiencies.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at which agreement was
not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the
21st of December, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company has implemented additional rationalisation (i.e.,
the installation and commissioning of new technology) which was
neither permitted nor catered for under the terms of the mill
rationalisation agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. The remaining workers have undertaken a changed role and
additional responsibilities (details supplied) which could not be
evaluated by the IPC at the time of its report.
3. The Company's costs have been reduced by a minimum of £60,000
per annum as a result of the contribution of the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company agreed to an overall package encompassing all mill
personnel. The settlement included substantial lump sum payments
and increases in basic rates. In the case of the 2-cycle shift
workers, a £2,000 lump sum was paid as part of the final agreement
to incorporate all changes in work practices and new manning-
levels.
2. The new manning levels for 2-cycle shift workers were to take
effect once the required technology was in place and were clearly
envisaged by both parties during the negotiation stage. They were
implicit in the IPC report to the Labour Relations Commission,
which was accepted in principle by both parties and were part of
the basis on which the Company reached agreement with the Union.
3. The agreement was a full and final settlement of all claims and
no further claims should arise from the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and the
background to the negotiations and agreement on rationalisation.
The Court has concluded from the Company's submission and the
other background documentation submitted at the hearing that the
claimants were compensated under the terms of that agreement and
that no further compensation is warranted.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
M.K./S.G. Evelyn Owens
13th March, 1996 ___________
Chairman.
Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mr.
Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.