Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92189 Case Number: LCR13690 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TOP QUARRIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (1) pay agreement, (2) importation of finished stone, (3) apprenticeships, (4) single person operation/auto shed and (5) safety clothing agreement.
Recommendation:
20. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
both written and oral is satisfied that, under the local agreement
reached in 1981, general operatives were paid the craft rate when
carrying out certain craft operations. Therefore, for the
purposes of application of P.E.S.P. increases these workers should
be considered as craft operatives on the basic rate whenever so
engaged.
The Court noted during the hearing, that both sides were of the
opinion that the other matters referred to could be agreed between
the parties if the pay issue was settled. Consequently, the Court
further recommends that discussions commence immediately with a
view to reaching agreement on these issues. In view of the cost
of implementing the pay increase, the Court recommends that the
Union should be as flexible as possible with regards to the
productivity elements of the discussions.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within four weeks of the
date of this recommendation, the Court would be prepared to review
the situation and possibly issue a further recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92189 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13690
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TOP QUARRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (1) pay agreement, (2) importation of
finished stone, (3) apprenticeships, (4) single person
operation/auto shed and (5) safety clothing agreement.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company have been operating in Ballinasloe since 1937. It
is involved in quarrying and the manufacture of head stones and
building stone work. The Company employs 29 general operatives, 6
stone cutters, 1 fitter and a sales and administrative staff of
12.
3. The Union sought an increase in pay for general operatives who
perform craft duties from time to time in accordance with he
Construction Industry Agreement which provided for a #43.70 per
week increase for craftpersons. The Company rejected the claim.
The issue, along with other items, was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 29th
January, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission with
the consent of the patties, referred the issues in dispute to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Athlone on 20th May, 1992.
PAY AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
4. The Union is basing its claim for a pay increase on a
Flexibility Agreement which was made in 1981. Clause 9 of the
agreement reads:-
"General Operatives will be paid the rate appropriate to the
job at all times. If polishing and taken out, craft rate
will be paid for as long as the person is out".
Since 1981 the craft rate has applied to all operatives covered by
the above clause.
5. The latest Construction Industry Agreement based on Labour
Court Recommendation No. L.C.R. 13340 provides for a phased
increase of #43.70 per week for craftpersons. The Company has
applied the terms to its time-served craft workers. The Union is
seeking to have the increase applied to the "Clause 9 general
operatives". The Company has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The 1981 agreement provides for the payment of the craft
rate to general operatives performing craft duties. This has
operated within the Company for the past ten years.
2. It is unfair to have two people doing the same job on
different rates of pay.
3. The flexibility agreement has and continues to provide
great benefit to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Construction Industry Agreement covers workers on
basic wage rates only. The workers are paid in excess of
basic rates (details supplied to the Court).
2. The claim is contrary to the terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
3. The Company is operating in a competitive market and
concession of the claim would undermine the Company's
competitiveness.
IMPORTATION OF STONE - BACKGROUND:
8. In April, 1991 the Company imported finished stone. This
resulted in a dispute and a one-week work stoppage. After the
resumption of work, the parties entered into discussions following
which the Company issued a letter dated 21st July, 1991 to the
Union which outlined its position regarding the importation of
finished stone. The Union sought greater guarantees regarding
jobs and loss of earnings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. In view of the Company's attitude towards the pay
agreement and other issues there is a high degree of mistrust
among the workers. Consequently they are seeking better
guarantees regarding job security, loss of earnings and a
limit on the amount of finished stone imported.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company wishes to import finished and part-finished
stone in order to respond quickly to the demands in the market
place and thus retain its present share of the market.
2. The Company cannot give an absolute guarantee that there
will be no job losses as a result of the importation of stone.
However the Company is committed to the further development of
the plant by investment and efficient organisation.
APPRENTICESHIPS - BACKGROUND:
11. This dispute concerns the selection of people for lay-off or
redundancy. At present if an apprentice completes his/her
apprenticeship s/he would take their place on the craft seniority
list. The apprentice could then, in a redundancy situation,
displace a general operative with more service. The Company is
seeking to have an apprentice on completion of apprenticeship
placed on the bottom of the general operative seniority list. The
Union objects to any changes the present arrangements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. Both the craft and general operative workers are prepared
to stand by the current agreement which emerged from enormous
difficulties.
2. There is no reason to change the present arrangements. To
do so would raise all the difficulties previously encountered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
13. The Company is seeking an agreement on a last-in-first-out
basis, all things being equal, for new employees coming into the
Company. It does not wish to change the present arrangement in
respect of workers presently employed.
SINGLE PERSON OPERATION/AUTO SHED - BACKGROUND:
14. The Company is seeking to have one person operate two
polishing machines in the auto shed instead of the present
situation where one person operates one machine. The Union
objected to the proposed change on the grounds of job losses, loss
of earnings and safety. The Company had a C.I.F. safety officer
carry out on inspection and he pronounced the proposed changes
safe. The Company also arranged for the workers to visit a
similar plant in Northern Ireland where one person operates two
machines.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
15. 1. If one person does the work of two then somewhere down the
line there is going to be job losses.
2. The Company has failed to show similar one-person
operations in other companies.
3. The workers are not convinced that the proposed changes
are safe as they would have to work in close proximity to two
potentially dangerous and moving machines.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. The Company, in seeking the introduction of one person
operating two machines, is endeavouring to respond to changes
in the market place and bring its work practices into line
with its competitors.
2. The Company arranged for the workers to visit another
Company to show how successful the one-man operation of two
polishing machines was in practice.
3. A safety officer has declared the proposed changes safe
(details supplied to the Court).
SAFETY CLOTHING AGREEMENT - BACKGROUND:
17. Up to January, 1991, the Company paid a cash allowance of #90
per annum to workers to cover the provision of safety boots and
overalls. The Company informed the Union that it proposed to
supply the safety clothing (two pairs of boots and two pairs of
overalls per year) direct to the workers and discontinue the
payment of the allowance. The Union objected to the change on the
basis that it was in breach of an existing agreement.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
18. 1. There is an existing agreement on the provision of an
allowance for safety clothing. If the Company wishes to
introduce change it should do so by negotiation and not
arbitrarily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
19. 1. The Company in changing the method of the provision of
safety clothing is complying with the recent Health and Safety
Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
20. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
both written and oral is satisfied that, under the local agreement
reached in 1981, general operatives were paid the craft rate when
carrying out certain craft operations. Therefore, for the
purposes of application of P.E.S.P. increases these workers should
be considered as craft operatives on the basic rate whenever so
engaged.
The Court noted during the hearing, that both sides were of the
opinion that the other matters referred to could be agreed between
the parties if the pay issue was settled. Consequently, the Court
further recommends that discussions commence immediately with a
view to reaching agreement on these issues. In view of the cost
of implementing the pay increase, the Court recommends that the
Union should be as flexible as possible with regards to the
productivity elements of the discussions.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within four weeks of the
date of this recommendation, the Court would be prepared to review
the situation and possibly issue a further recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
22nd June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.