FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TARA MINES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redress of earnings for period March - November, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a bonus incentive scheme for 51 development miners. The scheme is based on productivity which is measured in metres of tunnel mined per manshift worked (m.m.s.). Following local negotiations and conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission in 1993 and 1994 the parties agreed to implement a standard of 1.58 m.m.s. for a trial period from March, 1994. The standard was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in September, 1994. The Court recommended a revised standard of 1.50 m.m.s. which was later rejected by the workers. At a further conciliation conference a standard of 1.46 m.m.s. was agreed by the parties and was implemented from November, 1994. The Union's claim is for retrospective payment in relation to the difference between 1.58 m.m.s. and 1.46 m.m.s. for the period March, 1994 to November, 1994.
The Union's claim was the subject of two further conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 4th April, 1996 and 5th September, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the issue was referred to the Labour Court on 8th October, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th January, 1997, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Paragraph 4.2 of the bonus scheme states "the new standard will continue to be applied during any period of dispute, subject to retrospective payment from the date of introduction should that be necessary based on the final resolution of differences". The honouring of this clause is vital to the operation of the bonus scheme both now and for the future.
2. The Company's original proposal to increase the existing standard from 1.37 m.m.s. to 1.96 m.m.s. in 1993 would have required an increase in productivity of 43%. This target was unrealistic and negatively affected staff morale. Other factors such as equipment problems, annual leave and the numerous meetings required during the trial period adversely affected productivity.
3. No members of staff were disciplined nor did they receive warnings regarding their work performances. Their earnings for the period concerned were based on 1.58 m.m.s. but they are entitled to be paid based on the agreed standard of 1.46 m.m.s.. Retrospective payment has always been paid in the past and is due under the terms of the bonus scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From May, 1993 to March, 1994 the miners tried to block the introduction of a new contract. Productivity dropped to 1m.m.s. although no operational or organisational changes had taken place. When 1.58 m.m.s. was finally agreed they concentrated on undermining the contract and rendering it unworkable through a process of unofficial action (details furnished to the Court).
2. Records of crews' performances from 1991 to 1996 clearly show a dramatic decrease in performance from May, 1993 to November, 1994. Performance levels were well below achievable targets as well as below productivity levels achieved prior to the introduction of the new contract.
3. If the miners had worked normally over the period their bonus earnings would not have fallen and no loss of earnings would have occurred. Their actions have cost the Company £1.2 million in lost revenues in 1993 and 1994 and have seriously affected the Company's future production capabilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is agreed by both sides that 4.2 of the Incentive Bonus Scheme has applied in previous situations and that retrospection has been paid based on the final standard agreed.
Given this history and practice it is the Court's view that an expectation would have existed in this case, and that the Company should have indicated at the Labour Relations Commission that it was not prepared, for the reasons outlined in Court, to pay retrospection in this particular case.
However, the Court is also of the view that the claimants contributed in a major way to the drop in performance levels prior to final agreement on the bonus target level.
Taking into account all the information before it, the Court recommends that the Company pay the claimants 50% of the figure in dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th February, 1997______________________
D.G./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.