FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARCON MINES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Pay (2) Annual Leave (3) Paternity Leave (4) Employee Assistance Programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Arcon Mines is the only Irish owned and operated base metal mine in the country. It commenced full production in March, 1997, and operates the Galmoy zinc/lead mine in Co. Kilkenny, employing 199 people.
The dispute concerns pay, leave (both annual and paternity) and outsourcing of the employee assistance programme. The Union claims that a Company/Union Agreement on rates of pay negotiated in 1998 has gone beyond its termination date and is seeking improvements in pay rates. The Company claims it is unable to consider any pay increases at this time. The Union is seeking an increase in the Annual Leave allowance from 21 to 25 days and in the Paternity Leave allowance from 1 to 3 days. It is also seeking to outsource the Employee Assistance Programme. The Company argues that these claims are cost increasing claims, which it cannot afford.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Kilkenny on the 28th August, 2002, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union Agreement made in May, 1998 was outside the terms of the Partnership 2000 National Agreement and was seen as ‘bridging the gap’ until the mine progressed beyond its initial years of operation. The Company/Union Agreement has fallen behind both in regard to the National Agreement and the rate of inflation.
2 External rates increases, such as those in the construction industry, have outstripped the miners and mill workers pay by six to one.
3. Bonus schemes have not lived up to their stated potential and expectations. The workers wish to achieve a proper and fair basic pay rate without reliance on bonus earnings and have continued to co-operate with the Company to maximise production.
4. There has been significant developments regarding the financial re-structuring of the firm. The Union is seeking an extension of the Company’s financial re-structuring programme to members’ wages.
5. The annual leave increase from 21 to 25 days is being sought on a service related basis taking into account the arduous and unsocial nature of the job.
6. The improvement from 1 to 3 days paternity leave is fair and reasonable and in keeping with the doctrine of a‘family friendly’workplace.
7. The employee assistance programme should be provided by an external agency. Having the same person involved in the disciplinary procedure and in the employee assistance programme is a contradiction in terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a matter of public record that Arcon Mines has never made a profit. The current price for zinc is at a 25-year low with a number of zinc mines worldwide closing.
2. The Company has no means to pay any wage increases until it returns to profitability.
3. The norm for Annual Leave is 20 days. There is no standard to be found in the manufacturing industry to justify increasing the Paternity Leave Allowance. The Company see both these requests as cost increasing claims which it cannot afford.
4. The Employee Assistance Programme is operated through the Human Resource Manager with a guarantee of complete confidentiality. The Company do not see any merit in outsourcing the Programme which it claims would be a cost increase that it cannot afford.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that for the claimants involved in this case, it is unsatisfactory that no pay increases have been granted since the Company/Union agreement expired at the end of December, 2001. The Court notes the Company's acknowledgement that the employees expect a pay-rise. However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that due to the losses incurred it is unable to consider any pay increases at this time.
The Court was briefed on the Company's current state of business, due largely to the fall in the price of zinc. The future profitability of the Company will be influenced primarily by the zinc price, which industry forecasters have suggested will increase in the second half of 2002, and in 2003. A review of its major production costs is being carried out by the Company and includes a planned capital expenditure programme to increase the capacity at the mine. Management is hopeful that this will bring about an improvement in levels of production thereby deriving maximum benefit from any recovery in zinc prices. Any increase in throughput will reduce the unit costs as a large proportion of the operating costs are fixed costs.
Based on this position and the background documentation submitted at the hearing, the Court recommends that the issues in dispute at the Court should be deferred until January, 2003. At that time the parties should enter into discussions on these outstanding issues. The Company should continue to keep the Union up-to-date. In the event that the matters are not resolved by these discussions then either party may request a definitive recommendation from 1st February, 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th September, 2002______________________
CH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.