FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE LISHEEN MINE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a 30% increase in basic rates of pay. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Anglo Base Metals, which is a division of Anglo American plc. It employs 338 workers in the extraction of ore from its underground mine. The ore is processed into lead and zinc concentrates for export worldwide. The Company commenced operations in 1999 in which year the parties concluded an agreement which established the rates of pay and conditions of employment for workers. As the mine was in a 'start up' phase it was agreed that rates of pay would be reviewed in September, 2000. The review took place and amongst other things an increase of 5.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was paid by the Company. The Company has since that time increased basic pay in line with National Wage Agreements. The Union claims that during negotiations it was promised further pay increases over and above National Wage Agreements when the Company finances improved. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th February, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 18th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is not a spurious one but was agreed and entered into by the Company and the Union to achieve the Company's Business Objectives. These have been achieved and Lisheen Mine has the highest productivity of all mines owned by Anglo American.
2. The current basic rates of pay do not reflect or recognise the nature of the work undertaken by all employees, nor do the rates honour the Company's commitment to pay a fair day's pay in line with increased productivity. The price of zinc has increased significantly yielding a positive return for the Company.
3. While the Union recognises that the Company has paid the minimum increases in line with National Wage Increases these were the minimum increases and at all times Management was made aware of the requirement to pay over and above these terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement. The mine is the only mining operation in Ireland that has honoured its commitment to pay, on time, and, in full, the terms of the National Wage Agreements. The Company's commitment to honouring these National Wage Agreements was made against a backdrop of serious financial difficulties (details supplied to the Court). Concession of the claim would lead to repercussive claims from other employees leading to a sharp increase in labour costs.
2. At no time did any member of Management give either verbally or in writing a commitment that the rates of pay would be increased when there was an increase in the price of zinc or that there would be an increase in rates of pay outside the terms of National Wage Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that this claim is cost increasing and is precluded by the terms of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress. The Union, however, base their claim on certain provisions of the Company Union agreement concluded in 1999 and subsequently modified by an agreement concluded on 27th September, 2000.
The Court has carefully examined the wording of both agreements and can find nothing to indicate any commitment that the claim now before the Court could be processed notwithstanding the stabilisation clauses contained in the various National Agreements in force in the intervening period. Furthermore, the Court cannot accept that disputed recollections of verbal exchanges in the course of negotiations could offset the clear wording of both the local agreement and the National Pay Agreement.
For these reasons the Court cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th April 2006______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.