Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87437 Case Number: LCR11585 Section / Act: S67 Parties: - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 19 workers for the continuation of wage parity with the construction industry in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court noting the Company's statement that they intend
continuing their commitments to the benefits as regards pension
and sick-pay contained in the C.I.F. agreements, recommends that
in the present trading position of the Company the Union do not
pursue its claim for the total package implemented in the
construction industry, with regard to the 26th wage round.
The Court further recommends that the Company revise its offer by
reducing the pay pause to 5 months and that the offer as amended
be accepted by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11585
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF IRELAND LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 19 workers for the continuation of wage
parity with the construction industry in respect of the 26th wage
round.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is located at Watergrasshill in Cork and
manufactures roof tiles which are supplied to the housing side
of the building industry. Up until recently the Company had
been a member of the Construction Industry Federation
(C.I.F.). As an ancillary to the construction industry the
Company had been members of the C.I.F. sand and gravel
division who negotiated wages and conditions of employment
with the I.T.G.W.U. under the terms of the Cork Sand And
Gravel Agreement. This agreement has traditionally followed
the rates of pay and conditions of employment of the
construction industry.
2. In April, 1987, the Company informed the Union that they
had discontinued their membership of the C.I.F. and that in
future it would negotiate directly with the Union on pay and
conditions of employment. The Union informed the Company that
they wished to retain the link with the construction industry.
This approach was unacceptable to the Company. At subsequent
negotiations on the 26th wage round the Company sought a
twelve month pay freeze from 1st January, 1987 to 31st
December, 1987 and would further discuss the situation in
January, 1988. The Union rejected this and indicated that
they did not want to enter into discussions on the pay round
until the national negotiations between the C.I.F. and the
I.C.T.U. group of unions for the industry had been completed.
3. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 30th April, 1987. A conciliation conference
was held on 27th May, 1987. As no progress was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Union requested that
the Court hearing be deferred until the national negotiations
for the construction industry had been completed.
4. At a meeting held on the 19th August, 1987, the Company
put forward the following offer:-
(i) 15 month agreement,
(ii) 7 month pay pause,
(iii) 4% from 1st August, 1987.
This offer was based on Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR
11277 following a Court investigation on the 26th round for
the Company's other plant in Lucan. The Union indicated that
this offer would not be acceptable to the workers and that
they wished to await the outcome of the C.I.F. agreement.
5. The above mentioned offer was subsequently accepted by the
Lucan plant after it had been amended to provide for an extra
day's annual leave in 1988/1989.
6. This revised offer was put to the workers at the
Watergrasshill plant and was rejected by them. The Union
sought the implementation of the C.I.F. agreement which is as
follows:-
(i) 15 month agreement from 1st January, 1987.
(ii) 5 month pay pause.
(iii) 4% increase in basic wage from 1st June, 1987.
(iv) an increase of 15p per day on meal allowance.
(v) a further 15p a day on meal allowance from 1st April,
1988.
(vi) One day's additional annual leave.
This claim was rejected by the Company. A Court hearing was held
in Cork on 4th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been tied to the basic wage of
the Cork Sand and Gravel Agreement and general terms of the
construction industry since the Company was formed 15 years
ago. On a number of occasions in the past, particularly
during the boom years in the house building industry, when the
workers claimed a higher basic rate, they were firmly informed
by management that they were entitled to no more nor indeed no
less than the general terms of the construction industry.
2. The package offered by the Company falls short in a number
of areas of the construction industry agreement (details
supplied to the Court). As well as the financial loss
involved major problems could arise in the future if the link
with the construction industry is broken. For example in the
areas of pension and sick-pay the workers fear that the
benefits which they have accrued over the years could be lost.
3. 3. The plant in Lucan, while carrying out the same business,
has not got a direct link with the construction industry.
Both plants have always had separate negotiations on pay
rounds and have different rates of pay and conditions of
employment. It is quite unfair for management to be offering
the workers in Watergrasshill the wage element of the 26th
wage round in isolation from the entire package of benefits
which operates at Lucan.
4. During negotiations on the pay round the Company indicated
that concession of the claim would cause them to become
uncompetitive. The Union does not accept this argument as the
Company's main competitor has wage rates and conditions of
employment much more attractive than those operating under the
Cork Sand And Gravel Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Court will be aware of the extremely difficult
circumstances that continue to apply in the construction
industry. These difficulties have continued over the last
number of years during which period many companies have been
forced to close permanently or cut back heavily with
significant loss of employment. To date CPI has succeeded in
remaining in business, albeit at considerable cost. In 1982
the Company in total employed approximately 300 people.
To-day that number is 150. The Company has made a substantial
loss every year for the last number of years and is now in a
cumulative loss-making position that cannot be sustained
indefinitely.
2. This situation has been brought about by over-supply in
the market place, extreme competition and cost
incompetitiveness. Against this background the Company has
had to continue to concede substantial wage increases.
Management have a responsibility both to the Company
shareholders and the workers to manage the Company in the face
of extremely difficult trading circumstances. If management
were to ignore these difficulties and concede wage increases
purely on the basis that these have been incured in the past,
then it would be totally detrimental to the long-term interest
of the Company and the workers.
3. The claim for parity with the C.I.F. agreement shows
absolutely no regard for the present trading difficulties.
The workers concerned enjoy one of the best remunerative
packages in the industry. Were the Union to accept the
Company's initial proposals, that there be no increase until
1988, the workers would still enjoy one of the best
remunerative packages in the industry. The Company also
intend to honour its commitments under the C.I.F. agreement in
the areas of pension and sick-pay benefits.
4. The workers concerned are being treated in identical
fashion to all other Company workers. Management has taken
the decision to contain wage costs in 1987 as part of a
survival package.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court noting the Company's statement that they intend
continuing their commitments to the benefits as regards pension
and sick-pay contained in the C.I.F. agreements, recommends that
in the present trading position of the Company the Union do not
pursue its claim for the total package implemented in the
construction industry, with regard to the 26th wage round.
The Court further recommends that the Company revise its offer by
reducing the pay pause to 5 months and that the offer as amended
be accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__11th___December,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman