Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88280 Case Number: LCR11924 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE GROUP - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 clerical staff and sales representatives for an increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the terms of LCR10597, the Court takes the view
that increases such as those extended to other groups of workers
in the Company involved changes in conditions which would lead to
reductions in the Company's costs. Pending a mutually
satisfactory outcome to negotiations on such changes, the Court
recommends that the Company's offer of 8th February be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88280 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11924
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE GROUP
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 clerical
staff and sales representatives for an increase under the 26th
wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The previous wage round for all grades expired at the end of
February, 1987. The general operatives and maintenance staffs
received a 4% increase for 12 months from 1st June, 1987,
following the issueing of Labour Court Recommendation No. 11556 in
December, 1987. The Union then claimed the same increase for the
clerical staff and sales representatives. The Company rejected
the claim arguing that the rates of pay for the workers concerned
are ahead of competitors and that the market had dropped over the
last few years and costs are a critical factor. Local level
discussions failed to resolve the issue and on 11th January, 1988,
it was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
At a conciliation conference held on 8th February, 1988, the
Company offered to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery from 1st January, 1988, i.e. 2.5% increase
annually for 3 years, with the condition that the Union agrees to
negotiate changes which would reduce the Companies' costs as
previously recommended by the Labour Court in Recommendation No.
10597. This proposal was rejected by the Union and on 12th April,
1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
4th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned along with their colleagues in the
Group have been through a most demoralising period over the
last few years. Staff numbers have been reduced by
approximately 2,000, whilst the Group spends millions outside
the country in acquisitions and takeovers. The workers
believe that most of this capital for investment originated
from the Company during the good years and that the current
situation calls for a much more sympathetic approach.
2. With the exception of the very minimum under the various
wage rounds the workers earnings have stagnated completely for
the last 10 years. The clerical scales are far from being in
the first division of white collar employments. The last few
wage rounds have been lower and for a longer duration than
most and as a result the workers are a full round out of line
with most other workers. The workers are competing in the
market place, influenced as it is by 28th wage round
settlements, while still on 25th wage round rates.
3. The Group has paid the vast majority of its employees a
modest cost of living adjustment. The workers concerned
deserve no less favourable treatment. The Programme for
National Recovery will follow for all grades in due course.
Anything less than that would clearly be 'making fish of one
and flesh of the other'; a situation the Union could not
accept.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the continuing recession in the construction
industry the Group continues to experience serious financial,
market and trading difficulties. In 1987, volumes fell by 12%
over 1986, and the Group expects a further decrease in 1988.
The Union refuses to accept the changes in nature and
structure that have taken place in the industry. There are
now over 400 competitors supplying materials in a considerably
reduced market. With the exception of one competitor, none
have members of a clerical union.
2. As a result of the downturn in business, the Group cannot
afford to pay any increases over and above those offered in
accordance with the Programme for National Recovery to workers
whose rates and conditions are well above those of
competitors. The average earnings of clerical workers in
1987, was £14,500. The average earnings for craft and general
operatives for 1987, was £11,302. The clerical workers have a
37.5 hour week and are paid overtime at double time before
9.00 a.m. Craft and general workers have a 40 hour week with
normal starting time at 8.00 a.m. On those grounds the
Union's claim has no basis and must be rejected.
3. The Group's offer of the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery is made on the understanding that changes in
conditions which will reduce the Group's costs to the degree
necessary will in fact be achieved as per Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10597. If the Group is to survive it is
essential that the rates of pay and conditions of employment
of clerical workers are brought into line with those
prevailing in the industry.
4. The Group does not accept that there can be any dispute
with the sales representatives in relation to salary
increases. The majority of sales representatives together
with executives have accepted and are being paid the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery, effective from the 1st
January, 1988. The Group cannot enter into negotiations for a
higher increase in salary for a minority. Out of a total of
42, 26 have accepted the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the terms of LCR10597, the Court takes the view
that increases such as those extended to other groups of workers
in the Company involved changes in conditions which would lead to
reductions in the Company's costs. Pending a mutually
satisfactory outcome to negotiations on such changes, the Court
recommends that the Company's offer of 8th February be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
28th June, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.