ON Friday it looked as if the ESB unions and management had finally agreed a formula to solve problems in the power stations over the £270 million Cost and Competitiveness Review (CCR). After informal contacts all week it was decided to set up an eight member team to see what room there was for manoeuvre, through "clarifications" talks over the weekend.
It was hoped that clarifications would ease fears among day and shift workers in the power stations that they were being shortchanged. In particular, the talks were to win over SIPTU to accepting that the CCR was the most viable option for everyone, including its 700 members in the 9,400-strong workforce.
The talks only began on Sunday morning and broke down after a couple of hours. SIPTU did not accept the overall structure and terms of reference of the team, which provided for two negotiators from SIPTU, two from the ATGWU (the main union among day and shift workers) and four from management.
SIPTU's position appears to have been that the terms of reference for the clarification talks were so limited as to make the exercise pointless. The situation was not helped by the fact that the chief SIPTU negotiator, Mr Jack Nash, was out of the country for most of last week.
The events of the past week have tended to reinforce divisions among the ESB unions. On the one hand SIPTU remains convinced that it has been "stitched up" by the craft unions, which represent the bulk of the workers in most of the key grades.
On the other, SIPTU is regarded by other members of the group as selfishly pursuing its own agenda, regardless of the long term consequences for the company and its workforce.
To complicate matters, some of the other unions, such as the TEEU and ATGWU, are also unhappy with aspects of the CCR. Because of this the group is likely to opt for an endorsement of the final CCR document at today's meeting, rather than the full blooded recommendation that some senior trade unionists prefer.
Even if there is unanimous endorsement of the document, there will probably be a row over how the ballot is to be conducted. The company and some unions would prefer to have one vote on the overall package.
SIPTU will probably argue for separate ballots on the "pan awards" in the CCR that apply to all ESB personnel and the category awards", which vary between groups of workers. It may also seek to have votes counted on the basis of each union within each category, thus maximising the possibility of rejection, if only by a small minority of workers.
Rejection of the CCR by a majority of ESB workers is thought unlikely, but rejection by a number of minorities within different categories would immensely complicate the situation.