INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
OUTOKUMPU/TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Survival Plan.
2. The Labour Court hearing investigated the above dispute on the 22nd of January, 1998. The Court's Recommendation is as follows:
It is clear that a considerable amount of time, effort and commitment of all involved has gone into arriving at the proposals jointly agreed as the way forward for Tara Mines.
Given the inputs and efforts of all involved it is disappointing these joint proposals have not been agreed by all Groups.
However, given the nature of the Plan and the move towards partnership and employee involvement, it is understandable that certain difficulties will emerge from time to time as people try to understand the new way of working together.
The Court in considering the issues before it, is conscious that the proposals of the Joint Steering Committee involved other Groups, not involved in these discussions, and that as stated in the foreword of the Joint Steering Committee proposals booklet, the J.S.C. "considered all aspects of the operation and examined and agreed a number of contentions issues through this partnership approach".
Since the rejection of the J.S.C. proposal, lengthy discussions have taken place with the Labour Relations Commission and as a result the attached list of clarifications have been agreed.
In addition to these the Court recommends the following in relation to the issues before it:-
(1) Bonus Review Mechanism:
The issue of retrospection date for payment of any successful claims should be an issue for the Joint Implementation and Monitoring Committee.
(2) Rest Tea/Breaks:
Any perceived difference between the J.S.C. response on this issue and the Company letter on the matter was clarified at the hearing; and the Company will make every effort to provide basic facilities for employees where reasonable.
The Union for its part accepted that it would not always be possible to provide such facilities.
(3) Development Contracts:
The basis for arriving at the figure of 4% for Production Mucking over 500 yards is in dispute.
The Court having considered the points made is of the view that there may have been a misunderstanding on this and recommends that the parties agree a new mechanism for arriving at an agreed figure.
(4) Indirect Miners:
The Company stated that the majority of individuals in this area would earn more under the proposed system than they would under the current scheme.
Given this reassurance the Court recommends that the proposed scheme be accepted and monitored.
If the situation is not as above then the Union should have the right to raise the issue for discussion with the Company.
The Court recommends that the J.S.C. proposal on payment of compensation, over 2 instalments, be amended to read that compensation where due will be paid in 1 payment, 6 months after implementation of the Plan.
(6) Other Issues:
The Court does not recommend changes in any of the other issues raised.
However, the Court would recommend that if as claimed, some employees were erroneously excluded from the Joint Steering Committee Report, these should be re-examined.
Finally, the Court would recommend that the parties avail of the Joint Representative and Monitoring Groups to deal initially with disputes that arise from implementation of the Joint Steering Committee proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th January, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.
Summary Conclusions at Labour Relations Commission Talks:
1.1 Contracts not Complete:
New contracts will be issued in line with J.S.C. structures, concluded in consultations with relevant project teams and implemented at the same time as other contracts already agreed (upon implementation of the J.S.C. proposals). J.S.C. will conclude any contracts not agreed by project teams.
1.2 (a) Electric cables, pumps, extension cables are all part of the contract and have been agreed through the J.S.C. There is provision for these areas to be reviewed in accordance with Section 3.3.1 of the J.S.C. proposals.
1.2 (b) 48 Inch fans:
Where it is a replacement for a 30 inch fan, it will be dealt with by a temporary contract. Where it is part of an ongoing development advance it is part of the contract. However the contract can be reviewed in accordance with clause 3.3.1 of the J.S.C. proposals.
1.2 (c) Work Area Identification:
This is dealt with on a day to day basis. If a problem arises it will be dealt with by the relevant JMT.
The parties have agreed to keep this matter under review through the relevant Joint Monitoring Team.
This matter has been agreed in the J.S.C. proposals. A meeting involving the Company's and Union's industrial engineers, officers of the mine section committee and 2 representatives from the blasting crew will take place to clarify again the calculations detail.
1.5 Production Drilling:
Having regard to ground quality identification, where necessary, mine captains will consult with rock mechanics and/or geologists as appropriate and decide accordingly.
1.6Standard Hour Rate and Reduced Hours:
A clarification note on this issue will be drafted jointly by a representative of the Company and the Union.
1.7Indirects undertaking Miner's Work:
Trained provisional miners when undertaking direct miner's work will be paid the appropriate rate (miner's rate plus bonus).
1.8Mill Project Team Documentation:
Agreement was recorded on the circulation of the mill project team report.
Contracts were agreed by all parties to the J.S.C. Where substantial changes arise as envisaged in Section 3.3.1 of the J.S.C. proposals, differences will be resolved through the Joint Monitoring Team structure. The J.S.C. will formulate a mechanism to resolve differences. In this respect, the issue of retrospective application was still outstanding.