FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALMOY MINES LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Galmoy Mines Ltd and SIPTU in relation to pay. The Union is claiming that basic pay rates be increased by 8% with effect from 1st June 2006 and also the payment of subsequent increases due under the Towards 2016 National Wage Agreement (T16).
It is also claiming an increase of the mill operator bonus to achieve 25% of basic pay and a change in the qualifying criteria to receive the bonus in line with a comparable Company. The Company's position is that rates of pay are not out of line with industry norms and application of increases due under T16 should suffice.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. In an attempt at resolution the Company offered an adjustment to the mill operator bonus to 12.5%, an annual leave increase of two days (1 in 2007 and 1 in 2008), improvements to the defined contribution pension scheme and a once off lump sum payment of
€500 per person. The Union did not accept the Company's offer in the absence of negotiation on pay adjustment in advance of T16 application.
As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 6th March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The members associated with this claim are entitled to have increases applied to basic pay in advance of increases due under T16. This is in line with previous agreements existing within the Company.
2 The Mill Operator bonus of 12.5% of basic pay is inadequate. Comparable employments enjoy significantly higher rates of bonus as well as different qualifying criteria. The Miners bonus is also significantly lower than in the comparator company with workers penalised for safety and damages. As a result the miners bonus averages at approximately 25% as opposed to 50% in the comparator company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Rates of pay are not out of line with industry norms. Pay rates were adjusted to take account of National Wage Agreements in 2005 for members of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) and were applied to the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) members associated with this claim also.
2 The Company have made significant efforts at resolving this dispute in line with its previous commitment on the review. The Company's offer has not been accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considerered the oral and written submissions of the parties, as well as supporting documentation supplied.
Given the Company offers already made in relation to proposed adjustments with regard to annual leave, once off lump sum, pension scheme and mill operation bonus, the Court confirms that "Towards 2016" should apply with effect from 1st June 2006, but is not of the view that a case has been established for a further increase in pay rates and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th July 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.