THE ESB group of unions is to seek "clarification" this week on the impact of the Cost and Competitiveness Review (CCR), under which 2,000 employees are due to go. The unions are seeking the clarification to avert the possibility of the CCR being rejected by key elements of the workforce in the power stations.
As expected, yesterday's meeting of the group failed to achieve consensus on an approach to the CCR and it was decided to adjourn for another week. The key issue is how to conduct a ballot of the 9,400 strong workforce.
This week officials and shop stewards from the two unions representing day workers and shift workers in the power stations, the ATGWU and SIPTU, are to have informal discussions with the ESB. These will tease out the implications of the CCR for staffing levels and pay.
The ESB group of unions is insisting these talks are not an attempt to renegotiate the CCR. The company has repeatedly made it clear there will be no renegotiation.
It is likely to be a case of finessing the deal through at this week's discussions, rather than trying to change anything substantive.
Discontent has simmered among day and shift workers because they believe that other categories of ESB workers have fared better under the CCR. The situation is not helped by the fact that the package put to them represents the final position adopted by management, rather than a negotiated deal.
While some other groups within the ESB are in a similar position, these do not have the same importance within the company. Moreover, a substantial minority of these key workers are represented by SIPTU, which has been opposing the CCR since June.
However the ATGWU and TEEU are also understood to be unhappy with aspects of the review and it is by no means certain that any of these unions will give unqualified approval to the package when it is put to the vote. Without the wholehearted support of all the unions it is unlikely the CCR will be accepted by the workforce.
In that event other aspects of the strategy for introducing a competitive energy market by 1998 will begin to unravel.
Last night the secretary of the ESB group, Mr Paddy Reilly, would only say: "We are at the moment seeking clarification from the company on outstanding matters, and we will reassemble next Monday when clarity has been achieved."
At that meeting, agreement will have to be reached on how the ESB workforce is balloted. The aim of the principal negotiators will be to achieve a consensus in favour of the "clarified" deal.
Some of the concerns of the power station workforce could be readily addressed. Shift workers, for instance, are understood to be anxious that the reduced staffing levels already agreed in the CCR will not be further eroded by a failure to replace workers who are sick or on holidays.
Concerns over lost shift premiums, or overtime for day workers, can also be addressed. Indeed this may already have been achieved in part by protection of earnings clauses.
Ironically, it was the two month delay in tripartite talks between the Department of Energy, the ESB and the unions which led to the current problems. The momentum in favour of a positive ballot was lost as doubts began to grow. The unions now face an uphill battle if those doubts are to be eradicated.