Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91478 Case Number: LCR13513 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MORRIS BUILDERS PROVIDERS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute regarding (a) basic weekly wage (b) an improved sick pay scheme of 12 weeks (d) enhanced death in service benefit (e) doctor and drug scheme (f) pension plan (g) an extra 2 days annual leave (h) christmas bonus of 2 weeks pay.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the agreement concluded in 1989 was the final
resolution of the Union claim dealt with in LCR11957 and that
there are no direct residual issues.
In relation to the claim for parity with the operative in the
joinery store (who is not a Union member), the Court notes that a
specialisation in joinery was not an essential requirements for
the position as evidenced by the former incumbent. Nevertheless,
the Court recognises the benefit to the Company of having such
qualification and deems the pay differential which has been
applied to it as reasonable in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim for a basic pay increase for its members but recommends the
application of the differential to staff assigned temporarily or
permanently to the joinery store as replacement for the operative
in question.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91478 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13513
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: MORRIS BUILDERS PROVIDERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding (a) basic weekly wage (b) an improved sick
pay scheme of 12 weeks (d) enhanced death in service benefit (e)
doctor and drug scheme (f) pension plan (g) an extra 2 days annual
leave (h) christmas bonus of 2 weeks pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company commenced operations in Waterford in 1983.
The claim is on behalf of 4 general operatives who are the
only Union members in the Company. A similar claim for an
improvement in terms and conditions of employment was made in
1987. L.C.R. 11957 was issued on 18th July, 1988 and
recommended as follows:-
"The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union accepts the Company's
proposals of 18th August, 1987, in relation to annual
holidays and death-in-service cover.
The Court is of the view that the basic wage rates of the
claimants are out of line with those of similar
categories of workers in the area and has noted that the
Union has been pursuing a claim on this question since
early 1987. The Court recommends that this imbalance
should be corrected over a three-year period and regard
being had to the financial position of the Company this
should be at the rate of one-third at end of 1988, a
further one third at end of 1989 and the balance at end
of 1990".
2. After further local negotiations two increases of £12 per
week each were paid on 1st January, 1989 and 1st January,
1990. The terms of the P.N.R. were also applied from 1st
April, 1988. In addition there was agreement on annual leave,
death in service and a sick pay scheme. The current rate of
pay the workers is £170.93 per week.
3. On 12th April, 1991 the Union made a further claim for
improvements in terms and conditions of employment (details
supplied). The Company responded on 25th April, 1991 offering
the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.). No progress on the dispute was made locally and
the matters were referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 22nd August, 1991 and as
no resolution was possible the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 6th September, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 26th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. L.C.R. 11957 required the Company to correct the imbalance
between the rates of the workers and those of similar
categories of workers in the area. The 4 workers are still
out of line with workers doing similar work. In the Company,
non-unionised workers are on substantially higher basic rates
than the 4 workers. Despite the Labour Court Recommendation
there still remains a minimum differential of £25 per week
between the 4 workers and other employees doing similar work
at the Company.
2. The Company's attitude could be regarded as discrimination
against the 4 Union members. Despite this the workers are
fully flexible and interchangeable with the other workers who
are on substantially higher rates of pay. Some of the workers
have 8 years service and are still on lower basic rates than
other workers who have only a few months service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. L.C.R. 11957 recommended that the imbalance in wage rates
be corrected over a 3 year period, regard being had to the
financial position of the Company. As a result of the
recommendation, an agreement was reached with the Union
(details supplied). The Company feels that it has fully
honoured its commitments under the Recommendation and on 25th
April, 1991 offered the terms of the P.E.S.P. to the workers
from the expiry date of the P.N.R. The claims by the Union
are cost-increasing and therefore outside the terms of the
P.E.S.P. It should be noted that the operatives are unskilled
and it would be possible to employ a woodwork machinist for
just over £203 per week. The other workers against whom the
Union makes comparison are on different wage rates because of
skills and/or length of service.
2. House building has decreased considerably in recent times
due to the recession which makes it difficult for the Company
to sell its building materials. Net profits are down by 24.8%
since last year. In addition to this low level of activity
there is increased competition. The introduction of a pension
plan would have serious cost implications for the Company in
that the age profile of the workers is high (details
supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the agreement concluded in 1989 was the final
resolution of the Union claim dealt with in LCR11957 and that
there are no direct residual issues.
In relation to the claim for parity with the operative in the
joinery store (who is not a Union member), the Court notes that a
specialisation in joinery was not an essential requirements for
the position as evidenced by the former incumbent. Nevertheless,
the Court recognises the benefit to the Company of having such
qualification and deems the pay differential which has been
applied to it as reasonable in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim for a basic pay increase for its members but recommends the
application of the differential to staff assigned temporarily or
permanently to the joinery store as replacement for the operative
in question.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
___________________
19th December, 1991 Chairman.
J.F./J.C.