FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOLIDEN (TARA MINES) (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Application of incremental / merit payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Trade Unions in relation to the payment of a merit pay which was not paid in 2013.
- The Company contends that the non-payment was part of the company’s labour cost reduction plan for 2013. The Unions reject this position and claim that the payment remains outstanding.
- The dispute was not resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court on 11th October 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th December 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no stage during the negotiations with the company on the 2012 – 2014 Agreement were there discussions, let alone agreement that the merit/increment due for payment in 2013 would not be paid.
2. When the issue of merit/increments was talked about in relation to the original 2012 – 2014 Agreement, management stated that there would be no change to how and when these payments would be applied.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In global terms Tara’s competitive position within the zinc mining industry makes for stark reading. In overall cost terms Tara is in the highest 10% of operating zinc mines in the world.
2. During the negotiations for the 2012 – 2014 Agreement there was acceptance that neither pay or merit increases could be paid in the overall context of a contemporaneous reduction in labour costs from €69 million in 2012 to a budget of €57 million in 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court notes the Agreement contains the following provision
The Company agrees to facilitate the Labour Court Recommendation “that the 2012 – 2014 agreement and any payments due should be reviewed in light of the Company’s performance at the end of June 2014 if all elements of the agreements have been adhered to”.
The Court finds that this matter is encompassed within that provision and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
6th January, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.