LCR20050

SUBJECT:
1. Shift Premium Rates.


BACKGROUND:

2. Tara Mines, the largest zinc mine in Europe with an annual production of 2.7 milion tonnes, is currently owned by Boliden AB, a Swedish metals produer. Tara commenced operations in 1977 and currently employs 680 people.

From the commencement of operations until 2004 the Mine Department operated a 3-cycle 8 hour shift pattern. In 2004 the shift pattern changed to a 10.5 hour shift over 5.5 days a week. In 2009 the shift pattern was extended to cover 7 days. The shift premium for the 8 hour shift was 20%, and increased to 26% in 2004 and further increased to 29% in 2009.

The 2009 Agreement also included a reduction in the working week from 38.5 hours to 36.75 hours, without any reduction in pay, for all the employees involved in the claim before the Court. This represents a reduction of 4.5% in the weekly hours worked and as a result a proportionate increase of 4.5% in basic pay.

The Unions claim before the Court seeks the application of clause 18.03 of the 1977 comprehensive union/management agreement which reads:-'Shift workers on a 4-cycle shift schedule shall be paid at timeplus 33.33% on the basic hourly rate as shown in schedule 1 applicable to all shifts."

The dispute could not be resovled at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st March 2011, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with both parties agreeing to be bound by the recommendation of the Labour Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th April 2011.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union contends that there is a precedent for the application of the 33.33% as its members up to 1988 worked a 4-cycle shift, 8-hour shift 7 day week, and today a 12 hour 4-cycle shift 7 day cover is in operation and attracting the 33.33%.

2. The Union contends that the Company can well afford its claim based on savings achieved. The Union also maintains that the Company has guaranteed profits from hedging that the Company has secured going forward.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company maintains that an increase in labour costs at this point in time would have a detrimental effect on its competivenes and would endanger the long-term future of the mine.

2. The Company's payroll costs represent 51% of its overall costs while the industry average in less than 35%. The Company maintains that this situation is not sustainable in the long term and if not addressed will result in the mine closing earlier than 2018.





RECOMMENDATION:

It is clear from the information provided to the Court that while those associated with this claim are paid a lower premium for four-cycle shift working than another group employed on the same shift pattern, the Claimants are paid a higher rate of basic pay per hour worked. It is equally clear that when both elements of pay are taken together the Claimant group are no worse off than the other group in terms of their total remuneration.

In these circumstances the Court does not see merit in the claim for an increase in the shift premium paid to the Claimant group. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the union claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
29th April 2011______________________
MG.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.