Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91631 Case Number: LCR13562 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SPAIGHTS TIMBER PRESERVATIVES LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning a parity claim by the Union.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, and
particularly in light of the fact that rates in the Company are
determined locally the Court is of the opinion that the Union's
case for parity with Limerick cannot be sustained and that
adjustments made under other headings would be outside the terms
of the P.E.S.P.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91631 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13562
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SPAIGHTS TIMBER PRESERVATIVES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a parity claim by the Union.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 15 workers who are employed by Spaights
Timber Preservatives Limited at Monard, Co. Tipperary. The
Company is a subsidiary of F. Spaight and Sons, Limerick (which in
turn is an associate company of James McMahon Limited, Limerick)
and is involved in the treatment of telegraph poles and supply of
hardwood to the building industry. The Union submitted a claim
for parity of wages between the workers at Monard and those
employed by James McMahon Limited on the grounds that their work
was of a similar nature. It was first submitted in 1984.
Following a Labour Court investigation the Court rejected the
claim. The issue was raised by the Union in 1988 during
discussions on the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and
was rejected by Management on the grounds that it was a cost
increasing claim and was precluded by the P.N.R. The Union again
submitted the claim in 1991 during discussions on the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress. The claim was rejected by the
Company on the grounds that it is a cost increasing one under the
P.E.S.P. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 18th June, 1991. A conciliation conference was
held on the 16th September, 1991 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 22nd November, 1991. The Court
investigate the dispute in Limerick on the 28th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The situation in the Company has changed since 1984, (when
the Labour Court rejected the Union's claim) specifically
through the Company's involvement in hardwoods which has
increased substantially since that time. All the workers
concerned with the claim are engaged on an ongoing basis in
the hardwood section. The Union is highlighting this issue
because the hardwood operation has been moved in its entirety
from James McMahon Limited, Limerick to Monard.
2. The Company has stated that it pays the appropriate rate
applicable to the region which is the Mid-West Region. Both
Monard and Limerick are in the Mid-West Region and the rates
applicable in Limerick should be paid to the workers in
Monard. The Labour Court, in a previous Recommendation
recommended that there should be no differential between rates
of pay of workers doing work of a similar nature (LCR 3185
refers). There is only one competitor in the area of
creosoting telegraph poles in the region. The particular
competitor Company pays its workers a far superior rate of pay
to the workers in Spaights, Monard (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Union's claim for comparable rates of pay with
workers in James McMahon Limited is being pursued because the
Monard plant is in the same Group. The following rates apply
in Monard and Limerick.
Spaights, Monard James McMahon Limited Limited
General Operatives - £190.11
Machine Rate - £169.53 Drivers Rate - £199.68
Driving Rate - £172.53
The Union's claim is for the elimination of the discrepancy
(£20.59) that exists between the General Operatives rate of
190-11 and Machine Rate £169.53 and also the elimination of
the gap (£27.15) that exists between the Drivers' Rate of
£199.68 and the Drivers' Rate of £172.53.
The Union is prepared to negotiate the elimination of these
anomalies on a phased basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The Company has offered to pay the terms of Phase 1 of the
P.E.S.P. and while the Union has accepted those terms for the
workers in James McMahon Limited, Limerick, it has refused to
do so in respect of the workers at Monard. Clause 5 of the
P.E.S.P. clearly precludes the Union's claim for parity with
the workers in Limerick. Spaights, Monard is an entirely
separate Company from James McMahon Limited, and carries on an
entirely different type of work to the Limerick plant. There
has never been a personnel link between the companies.
2. Despite a particularly difficult trading year, the Company
proposes to adhere to the P.E.S.P., and has offered to pay
Phase I. The Company is supplying poles to two customers -
E.S.B. and Telecom Eireann - and has one major competitor.
Both companies are competing for the same market which is a
declining one. In the context of severe competition, it is
essential that costs are controlled to ensure the future
survival of the Company which is the only significant employer
in the Monard area.
3. The basic pay of the workers concerned, is extremely
competitive. Not including the P.E.S.P. machine operators are
paid £169.70 per week and drivers are paid £173.50 per week.
The Company has invested substantially in new machinery in
recent times. This has had the effect of making the work of
the employees concerned physically less demanding.
4. James McMahon Limited operates in nine locations. In all
of the different locations local rates have always applied by
custom and practice and the Company consistently adheres to
the rates. Concession of this claim would have serious
repercussions and would have a disastrous knock on effect for
over two hundred employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, and
particularly in light of the fact that rates in the Company are
determined locally the Court is of the opinion that the Union's
case for parity with Limerick cannot be sustained and that
adjustments made under other headings would be outside the terms
of the P.E.S.P.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
20th February, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.