Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91187 Case Number: LCR13340 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION - and - CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COMMITTEE OF THE;IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS |
Dispute concerning pay for craft workers and general operatives in the building and construction industry.
Recommendation:
This Recommendation is to be found in the full document.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91187 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13340
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION
(C.I.F.)
and
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COMMITTEE OF THE
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning pay for craft workers and general
operatives in the building and construction industry.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The current basic rates in the industry are #169.34 per
week for craft workers and #154.85 per week for general
operatives. Building workers last received a special increase
in 1978. In the course of the review of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.) which took place in late 1989 and
early 1990, the Unions raised the problem of low pay in the
construction industry and disparities with comparable
employments. A Joint Working Party on wage anomaly in the
industry was set up in 1990 whose terms of reference were:-
"to examine the basic rates of pay in the Construction
Industry and determine if they are out of line with those
in comparable employment."
The Working Party made separate reports on craft workers and
the general operatives. The report on craft workers was
issued in September, 1990 and stated:-
"having regard to the basic rate paid to comparable
categories (the majority of whom appear to be employed in
Local Authority area), there would appear to be a
discrepancy as between the Construction Industry basic
rate and that paid to similar comparable categories."
2. 2. The parties agreed in late 1990 that negotiations on the
wage rate issue could continue in tandem with the overall
discussions on a new/follow up P.N.R.. As a result a special
provision (annex 2) was included in the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) to allow for these
negotiations, subject to the parameters of Clause 3 of the
Agreement on Pay and Conditions. Following direct talks
between the parties the C.I.F., by letter dated 17th January,
1991, set out the outcome as follows:-
1. The employer side concede that the craft rate should
be increased by #43.70 per week during the currency
of the programme, i.e. over the next three years.
With regard to the first phase, we will discuss with
our principals whether it should be 40% of this
amount.
2. The same percentage increase for the first phase will
be paid to both craftsmen and general operatives.
3. The first phase will be paid in 1991.
4. With regard to General Operatives, the Working Party
will be reconvened to complete its work and it will
be asked to do this within a week.
In February, 1991 the Working Party report on general
operatives was issued and stated:-
"......there can be no doubting that in terms of league
tables the G.O. in the Construction Industry has fallen
considerably out of line with corresponding comparators
in the early 1980's."
In subsequent discussions the Unions claimed that a 91%
relativity between general operatives and craft workers which
had been established for over 20 years should be maintained.
The C.I.F. rejected this claim. The C.I.F. claims that the
case for an increase in rates for general operatives must be
judged on its own merits, having regard to comparable
categories.
3. No agreement could be reached on the issue of rates for
general operatives or on implementation dates and phasing
(Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. provides that implementation may
commence before the end of 1991). The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission on 14th February, 1991.
Conciliation conferences were held on 26th February, 1991 and
22nd March, 1991 at which the C.I.F. raised the following
items for discussion under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.:-
(a) Annual Holidays
A change in the established Summer holidays closedown
period from the first two weeks in August to the last
two weeks in July.
(b) Absenteeism
An arrangement whereby a financial penalty would
attach to absenteeism (in excess of the payment for
time actually lost).
(c) Sub-Contractors
A change in the terms of the Registered Agreement for
the industry relating to the circumstances in which
sub-contractors may be engaged.
The Unions who are prepared to negotiate with the C.I.F. on
these matters do not accept that they can be interlinked with
their present claim. The C.I.F. claims that as Clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. provides for a contribution by employees to the
need for flexibility and change, it is entitled to a
meaningful response on the 3 items it raised for discussion.
4. The Unions' claim in respect of pay and implementation is
quantified as follows:-
(a) Craft worker
The payment of an agreed increase of #43.70 per week
in basic pay for craft workers in the industry in
three phases of 40% on 1st May, 1991, 30% on 1st
September, 1991 and 30% on 1st April, 1992.
(b) General operatives
An increase in the basic pay of non-craft workers on
the same effective dates, in an amount sufficient to
maintain their pay relationship with that of craft
workers at 91% of the craft rate.
(c) Incorporation
The incorporation of the increases in basic pay for
all purposes.
The C.I.F. is offering:-
(a) Craft workers
#4.37 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1991
#8.74 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1992
#15.30 weekly supplement at 1st July, 1993
#15.29 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1993
_______
#43.70 in total.
(b) General operatives
#4.00 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1991
#2.00 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1992
#2.00 weekly supplement at 1st July, 1993
#2.00 weekly supplement at 31st December, 1993
______
#10.00 in total.
(c) Incorporation
Increases for both categories should be treated as a
supplement i.e. not incorporated in the basic rates.
5. The Commission, having formed the view that no further efforts
on its part would resolve the dispute, referred it to the
Labour Court on 4th April, 1991 under Section 26(1) (a) (b) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Both parties had agreed
to the referral. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on
30th April, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Basic pay rates in the construction industry are
determined by the Registered Employment Agreement for the
industry. For sometime the Unions have been concerned about
the unacceptable low levels of basic pay and the anomalies
which have developed with other groups within the industry.
While the majority of workers are covered by bonus incentive
schemes and piece-work schemes, less than 20% of the overall
workforce is in receipt of basic rates only. The Unions'
claim is directed exclusively towards those workers.
2. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. provides, in effect, for
increases in excess of the basic terms of the agreement, the
cost of which would not exceed 3% of the payroll costs of the
group of workers concerned. The Memorandum of Understanding
provides a mechanism by which the amount available under
Clause 3 can be totalled together and applied to correct an
anomaly affecting the minority of workers in the industry.
The net effect of this provision is that the minority of
workers who are on basic rates only will receive increases in
pay substantially in excess of 3% while those who are already
in receipt of rates of pay equal to or in excess of the new
rates will not receive any increase under Clause 3 of the
agreement.
3. The objective of the parties in negotiating the Memorandum
of Understanding was to provide a mechanism by which the
anomaly in pay levels in the building industry could be
eliminated. The amount involved was generally known and it
was specifically agreed between the parties that the limits
imposed by Clause 3 of the agreement would not be an obstacle
in meeting that objective. It was further agreed, and
confirmed by Clause 3 of the agreement, that in the case of
the construction industry the first phase of the Clause 3
increase would be payable in 1991.
4. The Joint Working Party which was set up to examine rates
of pay in the construction industry reported on craft workers
in September, 1990. Subsequently discussions on pay rates
were held in tandem with discussions on the proposed new
P.E.S.P. In January, 1991 the C.I.F. conceded an increase of
#43.70 per week in the craft rate which would bring it into
line with the second point on the salary scale of local
authority craft workers. While the proposal put forward by
the C.I.F. went a considerable distance in addressing the
Unions' claim it was unsatisfactory in that it left open the
question of the relative position of general operatives pay
and phasing of the pay increases.
5. The payment of an increase of #43.70 per week to craft
workers has been agreed. There is an existing relationship
between the basic pay rates for general operatives and craft
workers. This relationship (91% of the craft rate) must be
maintained in any adjustment of pay rates for the following
main reasons:-
(a) The relationship between general operative and craft
workers pay rates goes back over 20 years. The
consistency of that relationship through both local
and central bargaining and the intimate relationship
between craft workers pay and general operative pay
has been consolidated and reaffirmed in every set of
pay negotiations to date. Since 1987 that
relationship has remained constant at 91% through all
subsequent pay adjustments.
(b) The construction craft rate was determined by
external comparison and the general operative rate by
direct reference to the craft worker in the industry.
That is the only way it can be done given the
intimate relationship between craft workers and
general operatives in this industry. Any attempt to
disturb that relationship would have very serious
consequences for industrial relations in the industry
and prove to be totally counter-productive.
(c) The pay of general operatives does not reflect either
the proper external relationship with equivalent
workers or compensate in any way for the wide range
of duties which they perform in the industry. Far
from declining in relative importance, the general
operative has been at the centre of massive increases
in productivity, in changing technology,
mechanisation and construction methodology.
(d) It must also be acknowledged that the many local
schemes could not work properly without the active
involvement of highly experienced general operatives.
In some aspects or the industry, such as machinery,
road construction, demolition or pipe laying or gas
line conversion, the general operative performs a
multiple range of skills often with very little
reliance on other categories in the industry.
(e) All of this has developed without any serious
revaluation of the general operative level of pay for
the particular responsibility within the industry.
It is unthinkable that this flexible category should
accept so much change without any demarcation
disputes and without any major improvement in their
pay relationship. Being asked to accept a serious
downgrading of their well established pay relativity
will not be accepted.
(f) It is equally unthinkable that the Labour Court could
attempt to worsen the relative position of these
lower paid workers or to reverse the consistent
pattern of Court recommendations and Registered
Agreements for the past twenty five years. The
gradual establishment of the current relationship of
91% must be maintained.
7. 1. In relation to the phasing of the pay increases the Unions
modified their position and are now claiming the adaptation of
the formula used for phasing in special increases in the
Public Service under Clause 34 of the elaboration of the
Public Service Pay Agreement under the P.N.R. Since the
increase agreed in the case of craft workers is determined by
reference to Public Service rates it is appropriate that the
Public Service formula should be used.
2. The employers argue that a long period of notice is
required so as to allow them to incorporate the increase into
contracts. The Unions' reject this claim for the following
reasons:-
(a) The claim was originally raised in January, 1990. In
October, 1990 the Working Party Report, which gave a
clear indication of the value of the claim, was
accepted. At that point employers could have
anticipated the current increase.
(b) In any event, the amount involved was confirmed on
17th January, 1991 and it was also confirmed that
general operatives would receive the same percentage
increase on the first phase as craft workers. The
failure to agree on all details of the claim, and the
necessity to process outstanding issues through
normal procedures cannot be used as an argument for
delaying the implementation of the increase beyond a
date which would otherwise be considered
unreasonable.
(c) The increase granted to electricians in the industry
has been fully implemented since 1st April, 1991 and
the rate for electricians is now #217.23 compared to
#169.34 per week for other craft workers in the
industry. This difference in pay rates, between
workers working side by side on the same building
sites, is creating serious difficulties for the
mainstream construction unions whose members believe,
with considerable justification, that they were
placed at a disadvantage by agreeing to process their
grievances within the parameters of the national
agreements.
(d) On previous occasions increases in pay were
introduced in the industry at short notice, and in
some cases, at no notice, without causing any
insurmountable difficulties for employers.
(e) While the increases provided for in the current
review are significant in individual cases the
overall cost to the industry will not exceed 3% of
total payroll costs. While in the vast majority of
cases employers will pass the additional cost on to
their customers, even in cases where the amount has
to be absorbed it would not constitute an undue
burden on building firms particularly having regard
to the improvement in the overall economic
circumstances of the industry.
(f) It is understood that the Department of Finance has
agreed that the cost of this increase (3% of total
payroll costs) can be recovered on public contracts,
from the date from which it applies. A price
variation clause is also common in private sector
contracts, which would allow for recovery of the
increase from the date of implementation.
8. 1. In relation to the Unions' claim for incorporation of
increases in the basic rate, it has been clear throughout the
discussions that where workers are in receipt of additional
payments through bonus schemes or otherwise part of the
additional payments should be incorporated into the basic rate
thus avoiding any overall increase for those workers. The
position of the Unions in this regard appeared to be clearly
understood by the employers. The C.I.F. have proposed that
the increase agreed should be paid by way of a supplement
which would not be used for the purpose of calculating
overtime. The C.I.F. position in this regard is totally
unacceptable to the Unions for the following reasons:-
(a) The agreement reached between the C.I.F. and the
Unions in January, 1990, clearly indicated that the
low level of basic pay in the industry was the issue
which needed to be addressed. This was evident from
the terms of reference of the Working Party which it
was agreed to establish. It is also clear from the
finding of the Working Party which found that basic
pay was out of line with that in comparable
employments. Since the level of basic pay is clearly
the problem the solution must be to adjust basic pay.
(b) The direct negotiations with the employers, following
the conclusion of the national discussions, centered
on the claim for an adjustment in basic rates. A
letter from the Construction Industry Federation
dated 17th January, 1991 clearly sets out an offer to
adjust the basic rate of craft workers by #43.70 per
week. The meaning of this offer was that the basic
rate of the workers concerned would increase by the
amount specified.
(c) The offer of the employers was communicated to the
members of the various unions involved and formed
part of their consideration in voting on and
accepting the terms of the P.E.S.P. It was only
after the ratification of the P.E.S.P. that the
employers sought to change their position and
introduced the concept of a supplement. The Unions'
position is that an offer was made by the employers
on 17th January, 1991 and was accepted as an
indication of what the Unions' members would receive
on ratification of the P.E.S.P. The C.I.F. offer
was, to that extent, an integrate part of the overall
package which constituted the pay terms of the
P.E.S.P. which were accepted by the workers
concerned.
(d) The Unions are not in a position to accept any
variation on the terms put forward and accepted. Had
the employers intended that the increase be paid by
way of a supplement this should have been clearly
indicated to the Unions and set out in the offer put
forward. In any event, there is no justification for
maintaining an artificially low basic rate in the
industry which would do no more than reduce the cost
of overtime.
(e) The employers have argued that the form of payment
which they now propose is necessary in order to
prevent the spread of the increase to workers within
the industry who are not intended to be covered, and
to groups outside of the industry. The unions agree
with the employers in accepting that the increases
are intended exclusively for those workers who are
expressly covered by Clause 1 of the Memorandum of
Understanding at Annex II of the P.E.S.P. Pay
Agreement. However, it is submitted that the terms
of that agreement provide sufficient safeguards to
ensure it is so contained.
(f) Under Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding the
Unions in the construction industry and I.C.T.U. on
behalf of all other unions are firmly committed to
ensuring that the increases provided for are not used
as a basis for claims in respect of any other
category of employees within the scope of the
construction industry or any employment or category
of employees outside of the industry. This is as
firm an undertaking as can be given that the Unions
will ensure that there is no spill-over effect from
the increase provided. The position in this regard
was clearly understood by the workers involved in
this claim and was accepted by them in voting on the
P.E.S.P. The Unions are confident that they will not
be faced with demands from workers within the
construction industry who are already in receipt of
payments in excess of the rate when adjusted and in
the event of any such claims coming forward they will
not be processed by the Unions. The Unions
re-iterate this commitment to the Court.
(g) In the case of electricians, whose special pay
increase was a significant factor in influencing the
current claim, the increases are calculable for all
purposes and there is no justification why a similar
arrangement should not apply in the mainstream
construction industry.
9. 1. The C.I.F. has put forward three items on which they seek
agreement before applying the proposed increases. The Unions
are prepared to negotiate with the C.I.F. on each of those
issues at an appropriate forum and within an agreed timescale.
However, the Unions do not accept that the issues can be
interlinked with the current claim for the following reasons.
(a) None of these issues were raised by the employers
until after the ratification of the P.E.S.P. and
after the offer of 17th January was communicated.
(b) Each of the issues are complex in themselves and
require a considerable amount of negotiation and
consultation before the Unions would be in a position
to indicate their position on any of them.
(c) The need for change in any of the areas mentioned by
the employers has not been demonstrated
satisfactorily and it would appear that employers are
simply raising issues for their own benefit.
(d) The concessions sought by the employers are being
sought from all building workers and it is unfair to
expect workers who will not benefit from the
provisions of Clause 3 of the agreement (the majority
of workers in the industry) to concede on conditions
of employment without deriving any offsetting
benefit.
(e) While employers may be entitled to seek concessions
in return for the increases provided for by Clause 3
it is to be assumed that concessions could only be
sought from workers who are likely to obtain an
increase under that Clause. In this instance, the
vast majority of building workers will receive no
increase under the relevant Clause.
10. 1. The Unions propose that the National Joint Industrial
Council (N.J.I.C.) for the Construction Industry should be
re-activated and that the 3 items raised by the C.I.F. and
other relevant issues should be discussed by the Council.
2. While the Unions do not consider it appropriate to go into
the demerits of the C.I.F. proposals in detail the following
observations are relevant.
(a) Change in Holiday Arrangements
It is the long established custom in the construction
industry that workers take two weeks annual leave in
August. Given the casual nature of employment in the
industry the method of calculating annual leave
entitlement has been adjusted to facilitate this
statutory closedown. The C.I.F. announced a change
in the holiday period earlier this year, without any
consultation with the Unions and for reasons which
were never explained to the Unions. The Unions
rejected the C.I.F. position in this regard but did
indicate a willingness to discuss the matter with
them. The Unions continue to be available for
discussions on this matter but cannot have an issue
as important as change in annual leave arrangements
forced through in the context of the present
negotiations.
(b) Absenteeism
If absenteeism is a problem in the industry (and it
is not accepted that it is) the Unions are prepared
to discuss the matter. However, a system of fines
for absenteeism is not an appropriate or an
acceptable way of dealing with any problem which may
exist.
(c) Sub-contracting
The use of sub-contractors in the construction
industry is a serious issue for the building unions
and for the industry as a whole. Many of the
problems associated with the black economy stem from
the ease of entry of sub-contractors into the
industry and the general proliferation of small
sub-contractors. The Unions could not lightly agree
to a change in the rules on sub-contracting which
were introduced as a means of exercising some control
over the spread of black economy operations.
Moreover, the categories which would be predominantly
affected by the C.I.F.'s proposal (i.e. bricklayers
and plasterers) are the very categories who are least
likely to benefit from the increase proposed since
the majority of workers in those categories are
already in receipt of rates in excess of what is
proposed. It is totally unacceptable to the Unions
representing these workers that a change in their
long established position on sub-contractors should
be forced on them in return for an increase in pay
which will not apply to their members.
C.I.F.'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. In 1990 the Working Party established to examine pay
rates in the construction industry produced data concerning
craft workers. No data was produced in respect of general
operatives although the terms of reference of the Working
Party applied to all building workers. The Working Party
found that there was a disparity between the basic rate of
building craftsmen and craftsmen in related employments. The
C.I.F. acknowledged that there was a problem relating to the
basic rate. This in itself was a very important move as
heretofore the reaction had been to reject similar claims
which were based on comparability of earnings. While the
examination was confined to basic rates, concession of the
issue in relation to craftsmen was a major step.
2. The next stage was negotiations under the aegis of the
parties to the P.E.S.P. which provided for a Memorandum of
Understanding for the construction industry at Annex 2.
During the negotiations on Annex 2 the Unions side produced
figures on the number of workers on the basic rate and
indicated that the cost of accommodating the increase sought
(which in the case of craftsmen is in excess of 25% of the
basic rate) could be accommodated within 3% of the basic wage
cost. The reply from the C.I.F. was that they could neither
accept nor deny these figures. The C.I.F. subsequently
carried out its own nationwide survey of pay and conditions
of employment (details supplied to the Court).
3. When considering costs a major factor which was beginning
to appear during the negotiations and which has now become
much clearer is the state of the industry. Activity levels
declined by nearly 40% in the period 1980-'88. The recovery
during the last two years must be considered in this context
particularly as levels in 1991 remain over 25% below 1981
levels. The recovery in construction activity will cease in
1991 resulting from the adverse trend in interest rates and
the general level of uncertainty evident throughout the
economy (and other economies) over the last nine months.
Costs could also increase due to the proposed harmonisation
of value added tax rates in the European Community. Given
the very limited recovery which has taken place since the
last recession, it would be most unfortunate for all (and not
least the workers) if the industry were to exacerbate the
situation by adding unduly to labour costs.
4. Subsequent to the negotiations on P.E.S.P., and before
ratification, the C.I.F. was put under intense pressure and
conceded an increase of #43.70 for craft workers over a 3
year period. In the light of economic and trade developments
since then it would be better for the industry if, by
agreement, this amount were paid over 6 years instead of 3
years so as to safeguard employment and to avoid
liquidations.
5. The amount of the increase for general operatives was not
agreed at that time. As in the case of craft workers, the
claim for an increase for general operatives must be judged
on its own merits in the context of comparable employments.
There could be an overspill into the industry generally if
too great a concession were made to general operatives. The
C.I.F. estimates that an increase of #10 per week is
warranted for general operatives. The increase could be paid
in four phases.
6. On the question of phasing the increases, the position is
that the industry, in the space of 3 years, is endeavouring
to undo an imbalance which has been created over the last 15
years by external factors. Contractors must have as much
notice as possible in respect of cost increases so that they
can be included in contract prices. There are now more fixed
price contracts than ever before and sufficient time must be
allowed for those to run out. The first phase should be kept
as close as possible to 3% as many contractors will find it
difficult to recover any of the cost of the pay increases.
7. On the question of incorporation, it is of considerable
importance that these increases for both categories of
workers be treated as a supplement, i.e. not incorporated in
the basic rate, for the following reasons:
(a) to identify that this increase relates to workers who
are on the basic rate of pay only, as is the claim.
With regard to workers who are paid an unofficial
rate between the basic and the basic plus supplement,
their earnings would be adjusted as and when the
latter figure exceeded their earnings,
(b) to avoid earnings being inflated by increased
overtime again bearing in mind the fact that the
issue relates to workers whose earnings are on the
basic rate.
(c) To avoid a catastrophic knock-on effect on companies
allied to the industry, but not covered by the
Registered Agreement, and who by tradition or
agreement increase their wage rates by reference to
increases in the basic rates in the building
industry.
8. After the ratification of the P.E.S.P., the C.I.F. raised
three items which it is entitled to have conceded under the
terms of the agreement and in particular under clause 3 of
the Pay and Conditions Agreement. These three items are as
follows:
(a) Change in holiday arrangements
The C.I.F. has conducted a poll of its members on the
question of the timing of annual holidays, having
regard to the cost factor and difficulty in booking
accommodation at the peak time of the holiday year
(first two weeks of August) and the proximity of the
holiday period to the commencement of the school
year. Of those who replied, the vast majority, who
had consulted their staff, favoured a change to the
last two weeks of July. The Unions were consulted in
December but when the view of C.I.F. members was made
known in February (that a change should be made in
1992) they objected on grounds of lack of
consultation.
(b) Absenteeism
There is a need to update a previous agreement which
links pay with absenteeism and reads as follows:
Where an operative without valid reason is
absent for a day or most of a day (minimum four
and a half standard working hours) he shall then
lose the amount of money specified below and the
following working day.
#1.10 pence for Craftsmen
#0.98 pence for General Operatives
If an operative is late in starting for more
than half an hour on three days in the pay week,
he shall forfeit the specified amount for those
three days. The same shall apply on any other
day on which he is more than half an hour late
in starting in the particular pay week.
These deductions are in addition to the loss of
unworked time and are without prejudice to any
other legitimate action that the employer may
take.
The C.I.F. is entitled to a meaningful response on
the issue at this stage of the negotiations.
(c) Sub-Contracting
There is a need for free use of sub-contractors
provided they comply with the terms of the Registered
Agreement for the industry.
*RECOMMENDATION:
12. 1. The Court in investigating this dispute has taken account
of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and
written submissions and in correspondence. The Court has
also been cognisant of the terms of reference and the
conclusions of the Joint Working Party and of the Memorandum
of Understanding on the operation in the Construction
Industry of Clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay and Conditions
which forms part of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (Annex 2 to Appendix A)
2. In all the circumstances the Court makes the following
recommendations.
2.1. For those craftsmen in receipt of the basic craft rate
an increase of #43.70 to be paid. (Clause 4, Annex 2 of
Appendix A).
2.2. For those non craft workers in receipt of the basic
rate an increase to be paid which will give pay equivalent to
the rate of pay of Local Authority craftsmens mates (point 2
of the scale). (Clause 4, Annex 2 of Appendix A).
2.3. The above increases be phased in on the following
basis.
40% - 1 September, 1991.
30% - 1 September, 1992.
30% - 1 April, 1993.
2.4. The increases to be treated as a supplement to basic
pay in the first instance subject to paragraph 3 below.
2.5. That the parties immediately commence negotiations with
a view to reaching agreement on the following issues.
(a) Annual Holidays
(b) Sub-Contractors
(c) Attendance/Absenteeism.
That these negotiations be completed on or before 30th
November, 1991. Failing agreement the parties to arrange for
outstanding issues to be referred to the Labour Court
for recommendation.
3. In recommending at 2.4. above that the increases be paid as a
supplement in the first instance the Court has carefully
considered the arguments of the parties regarding the nature
of the payments to be applied, the views of the Construction
Industry Federation that the increases be applied as a
supplement and those of the Unions on behalf of the members
that the discrepancy should be addressed by an increase
incorporated in the rate for all purposes.
The Court finds it disquieting that this issue was referred
to it for a recommendation given the very specific terms in
which the Memorandum of Understanding in the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (Annex 2 of Appendix A) was
written and the involvement of the parties in the drafting of
that Memorandum.
The parties at the commencement of the exercise sought to "to
examine basic rates of pay in the Construction Industry and
determine if they are out of line with those in comparable
employment." They found that "there would appear to be a
discrepancy as between the Construction Industry basic rate
and that paid to similar comparable categories."
In considering this issue the Court has noted that the
comparable rates of pay are reckonable for all purposes.
Given all the circumstances the Court takes the view that
there are grounds for applying the increases as a supplement
in the first instance. The Court considers however that to
continue applying the increases in this way would not be
practical and likely to create difficulties for the future.
The Court further considers that administrative difficulties
are likely to occur.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties following
the payment of the third phase above agree a date for the
incorporation of the increases for all purposes before the
expiry of the agreement.
4. The Court wishes to emphasise that the recommendations apply
only to those workers comprehended under the provisions of
the Memorandum of Understanding and no others. In this
context the Court draws the attention of all employers and
workers to Clause 3 of the memorandum (quoted below) which
forms part of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
accepted and ratified by the social partners:
"Clause 3
3. Unions in the Industry, and I.C.T.U., on behalf of the other unions, undertake to ensure that they will
not attempt to extend any increases which emerge as a
result of negotiations under Clause 1 or to use them
as a basis for a claim in respect of:
(a) any other category of employee within the
scope of the Construction Industry, or
(b) any employment or category of employee outside
the industry."
RECOMMENDATION:
This Recommendation is to be found in the full document.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
10th July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.