FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOLIDEN TARA MINES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Headcount Reduction in The 'Mill' Function at the site
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a reduction in numbers at its Mill operation on site. The parties are in dispute in relation to the agreed levels of manning at the Mill. The dispute was not resolved 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 5th November 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th January 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It is accepted that overall staffing levels are to be reduced on site but there is no agreement that the Mill should incur a reduction in numbers. A previous agreement concluded between the parties set the minimum number of staff required in the Mill and a further loss cannot be justified or accepted.
2 The agreed manning levels of 30 (26 permanent staff plus 4 helpers) can be maintained through redeployment from other areas within the site without the need to reduce the Mill staffing levels below the agreed minimum numbers.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The costs being incurred by the organisation can no longer be sustained. Initially a reduction in pay was required yet ultimately a reduction in overall numbers of 7% was agreed instead. The required reduction in the Mill staffing levels is achievable through a change in shift cycles and the provision of the required cover where necessary.
2 The previously agreed minimum staffing levels at the Mill were in place prior to significant investment, modernisation of processes and reduced maintenance requirements. The Mill could easily operate within the reduced staffing levels now required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a headcount reduction in the Mill function at the site. On the retirement of one of the Mill Operatives the Company proposed in accordance with its Agreements to reduce headcount numbers and replace the Operative by introducing revised rosters and flexible working arrangements across the Mill Operator subgroups.
The Union disputed the Company’s proposal and referred to an Agreement reached in 2010 on the headcount numbers of the Mill which at the time it was decided would be 30 Operatives.
The Court notes that an Agreement was reached by both sides in March 2013, emanating from Labour Court Recommendation No: LRC 20474, to reduce the overall headcount numbers at the site from 700 to 650 to be achieved in the main through retirements and early retirements. This Agreement was reached as a cost-saving measure in lieu of a pay reduction proposed by the Company at the time. The 2013 Agreement was further amended by an interim Agreement reached in 2014 to reduce the numbers further to 590. The Court notes that in those Agreements no distinction was made concerning the Mill and, while no reference was made to the 2010 Agreement, the Court is satisfied that the headcount reduction was intended to apply across all sectors of the workforce.
The Court notes that the Company has submitted a number of options to deal with the reduction in headcount in the Mill and it is willing to engage with the Union on proposals it wishes to suggest in that regard.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court recommends that both parties should enter into discussions on agreeing new rosters and flexible working arrangements to facilitate the reduction in headcount from 30 to 29 operatives in the Mill function as a result of the retirement of a 2 shift Operative in June 2013. The Court recommends that these discussions should be completed not later than six weeks from the date of this Labour Court Recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th January 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.