Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88763 Case Number: LCR12131 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILSARAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 12 workers for the introduction of a meal allowance.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties and in
particular the terms of the agreement made on the occasion of the
purchase of the original Company which omitted any reference to
meal allowances the Court does not therefore recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88763 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12131
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILSARAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 12 workers for the introduction of a meal
allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of readymixed
concrete in Tallaght, Co. Dublin. It has a number of other small
operations in Leinster. The plant at Tallaght was purchased in
the Autumn of 1987 and currently employs a total of 15 people.
3. On the take over from the previous owner (Goode Concrete
Limited) the Company agreed to retain those employees with more
than one year's service on new terms and conditions of employment
(copy of agreement supplied to the Court). The new conditions of
employment resulted in loss of earnings being sustained by the
workers (reduction in basic pay from #181.18 to #148.26, bonus,
sick pay and non contributory pension schemes eliminated and a
reduction in protective clothing allowance). In return for
accepting these losses the Company agreed to pay each worker a
lump sum of #2,000.
4. Goode Concrete also paid a daily meal allowance of #1.80 which
was also discontinued at the time of the take over. In May, 1988
the Union claimed a meal allowance of #1.75 a day equivalent to
the meal allowance payable under the Registered Employment
Agreement (REA) for the Construction Industry. The claim was
rejected by the Company and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 9th September, 1988.
A conciliation conference was held on 10th October, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 10th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 2 of the new terms and conditions of employment
document states that "The basic hourly rate of pay shall be as
those set out in the Registered Construction N.J.I.C.
agreement except where they are improved or amended by any
terms set out herein. Consistent with this the application
date of wage increases in the Companies shall be those agreed
nationally for the Construction Industry." It is the Unions
contention that while this clause ties the workers to the
Construction Industry rates of pay they should also be
receiving the Construction Industry meal allowances of #1.75 a
day.
2. The Company's main competitors in the Dublin area not only
pay higher rates of pay but pay meal allowances and in some
cases bonuses to the drivers as well (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Company cannot have it both ways. It quotes the
Construction Industry R.E.A. when it comes to keeping down
rates of pay but at the same time refuses to pay the fringe
benefits associated with this agreement. On the other hand
the Company quoted the alleged non-payment of meal allowances
by other readymix companies but refused to even consider
paying to the workers concerned the higher basic wage rates
which these pay.
4. The Company have argued that this claim is precluded under
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R..
However the terms of the P.N.R. have been applied to
Construction Industry agreement and to competitor companies
where meal allowances already existed.
5. The Company has also referred to the buy out agreement of
November, 1987. It is the Union's belief that the workers
were selling the conditions enjoyed as employees of Goode
Concrete Ltd in return for the Construction Industry
conditions. It is unjust for the Company to pick and choose
which of these conditions should or should not apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The contract of employment now in place provides for basic
rate increases in line with the percentages agreed by the
Construction Industry Federation and the Construction Group of
Unions. Although the Company is not subject to the terms of
the R.E.A. it agreed, as do many other companies allied to the
Construction Industry, to adjust their hourly rate in line
with the hourly rate increases in the Construction Industry.
It must also be pointed out that the rates of pay applying at
Kilsaran Concrete are higher than those payable to similar
grades in the Construction Industry.
2. In the Agreement reached between the Company and the
workers it was accepted that any conditions enjoyed by the
workers while employed by Goode Concrete Ltd would no longer
prevail and in accepting this agreement an ex gratia lump sum
was paid to each worker. There was no agreement to pay meal
allowance and indeed the Company's competitors the Independent
Concrete Manufacturers - over 60 of whom are members of the
C.I.F. do not pay such allowances.
3. The Union have argued that this company's competitors pay
meal allowances. It must be pointed out that the companies
chosen as comparators by the Union are big multi-national
companies servicing a different area of business.
4. There is an agreement between the workers and the Company
excluding the right to claim during the period of a wage
agreement and we emphasise this further by quoting from the
27th wage round agreement i.e. National Understanding which is
quite specific on the conditions for the payment of 3% on the
first #120 weekly pay and 2% on any amount over #120 "these
increases shall be applied through existing industrial
relations machinery due regard being had to the economic and
commercial circumstances of the particular firm or industry.
It is also agreed that no further cost increasing claims will
be made on employers."
5. Concession of the Union's claim would have repercussive
effects with similar claims being lodged within its other
small units in Leinster.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties and in
particular the terms of the agreement made on the occasion of the
purchase of the original Company which omitted any reference to
meal allowances the Court does not therefore recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
18th November, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.