Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88326 Case Number: LCR11922 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH HOLEMASTERS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claims regarding - (a) 26th wage round retrospection payment (b) differentials (c) protective clothing (d) bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimants be paid a lump sum of £50
each in view of the delay in finalising an agreement. The Court,
does not recommend concession of the claim for differentials. The
Court notes the Company's undertaking that protective clothing
will be renewed without delay and that it will explain, when
asked, any aspects of the bonus scheme payments.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88326 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11922
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH HOLEMASTERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Construction Industry Federation)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims regarding -
(a) 26th wage round retrospection payment
(b) differentials
(c) protective clothing
(d) bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 26th wage round in the Company provided for a 4% increase
which was applied from 1st October, 1987. The Union claimed that
as wage rates in the Company have followed the Construction
Industry rates over the years the 4% should be paid
retrospectively from 1st June, 1987, as in the Construction
Industry Agreement. The Company's position is that while it is
not a party to the terms of the Construction Industry agreement it
has paid that industry's rates but retrospection has never been
paid. The Union's position is that the 26th wage round already
incorporated a pay pause and a further pause should not be added.
The Union is also seeking payment of differentials as applied in
the Construction Industry, provision of further protective
clothing, and clarification of the bonus scheme. On 27th January,
1988, the matters were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd April,
1988, at which no progress was made and the issues were referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 2nd June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is closely related to the Construction
Industry and over the years rates of pay have been in line
with rates in the Construction Industry. However, while the
Construction Industry agreement for the 26th wage round
provided for an increase of 4% from 1st June, 1987, the
increase in this Company was not implemented until October,
1987. The Construction Industry agreement had already
included a five month pay pause and a further four month pay
pause should not be imposed by the Company on the workers.
The agreement was accepted by the workers as a package
despite the existence of a number of items that they were not
satisfied with, the Company must also accept the agreement as
a package.
2. The registered agreement for the construction industry
provides for the payment of plus rates to semi-skilled
workers. The workers in this Company are still on the basic
rate of a general operative in the construction industry,
although they are expected to use a wide range of tools and
the work requires a high level of knowledge and skill. The
work involved is semi-skilled and therefore plus rates should
be paid.
3. The nature of the work is dirty and unpleasant. However,
the Company is very slow in issuing protective clothing.
Each worker should be supplied with three pairs of overalls,
a pair of safety boots and wellington boots as required each
year.
4. There is confusion among the workers as to the operation
of the bonus scheme in the Company, however the Company seems
to be reluctant to explain the system. The Company should
explain in writing the workings of the bonus scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not covered by the terms of the registered
agreement for the construction industry. However the Company
has always adjusted the rates to those of the construction
agreement when announced. The Company has never paid
retrospection and this would not be possible as such costs
are not recoverable on contract work. In addition the
Company, although it is not required to do so, operates the
Construction Industry pension and sick pay scheme and
provides travel conditions far in excess of the Construction
Industry agreement. The 27th wage round increase was
implemented from the date of announcement. The Company
cannot afford to make retrospective payments which would
create a precedent.
2. The claim for differentials as applied in the
construction industry is in fact a claim for a wage increase.
The workers already receive a bonus payment which together
with the basic rate takes into account the equipment the
workers are required to use. In relation to protective
clothing, the Company provides two overalls per year and
other gear as required.
3. The bonus scheme in operation provides for a payment of
£4 per day provided equipment is kept in good repair,
vehicles are kept clean and faults reported and employees
work on own initiative with the Company equipment as provided
with reasonable results. The Company is prepared to explain
the scheme to the workers when requested.
3. The pay and conditions of the workers are reasonable and
fair and the increased costs would put the Company into a
vulnerable position in relation to its competitors who do not
pay the terms of the Construction Industry Agreement and who
do not have high overheads. The Company cannot afford to pay
these additional claims which are in conflict with the
present programme for national recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimants be paid a lump sum of £50
each in view of the delay in finalising an agreement. The Court,
does not recommend concession of the claim for differentials. The
Court notes the Company's undertaking that protective clothing
will be renewed without delay and that it will explain, when
asked, any aspects of the bonus scheme payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman