Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91637 Case Number: LCR13586 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KEHOE CRANE HIRE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rates of pay for 3 drivers.
Recommendation:
In the light of the submissions made and having regard to the
generally depressed state of the industry in which the Company is
involved, the Court recommends that the employer's offer made at
conciliation be accepted by the worker concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91637 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13586
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: KEHOE CRANE HIRE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rates of pay for 3 drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a number of large self propelled
telescopic cranes which are used on a wide variety of
industrial and construction sites. There was a strike
situation in the Company recently which was resolved when the
workers received an increase in basic pay of £35 per week.
2. Prior to the strike the workers were paid the following
bonus payments:-
(i) £20 weekly, paid in December in respect of maintenance
carried out, with deductions to be made in respect of
operator negligence. This was introduced for the calendar
year 1990 and all drivers were paid in full in December. The
employer then discontinued the scheme.
(ii) £5 was payable weekly for each day worked in excess of 10
hours on a single job. This scheme was discontinued when the
workers received the £35 pay increase.
3. The Union sought on behalf of the workers reinstatement
of the 2 bonus schemes. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 14th November, 1992. At conciliation the employer
offered to increase basic rates by a further £5 per week.
The offer was rejected by the Union. No resolution was
possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 29th November, 1991. A
Labour Court investigation was held in Waterford on 19th
February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not accept that an employer has the right
to agree bonus schemes with workers and then to unilaterally
disconinue the payments while at the same time expecting all
of the work to be done as before. The workers do 90% of the
maintenance of their vehicles which results in a considerable
saving for the Company.
2. The Union accepts that £35 per week is a substantial
increase in these times. The Union would argue however that
the new rate is only £25 per week more than the pay of a
general operative on a building site. The increase therefore
can only be the accumulated basic pay increases which the
workers did not receive over the years. The Company did not
say that the increase was in lieu of the bonus payments.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers have recently received a wage increase of
21.87% and their present rate of pay is substantially above
that recommended by the Construction Industry Federation.
The present economic climate has resulted in decreased
turnover and a daily struggle for survival. Overheads cannot
be increased in the manner sought by the Union, especially
since from June 1991, the number of drivers has had to be
reduced by 3.
2. The Company introduced on a trial basis the £20 per week
payment in June, 1990 in an effort to clean up machines and
have less breakdowns. As part of the scheme deductions were
to be made in respect of operator negligence over the year.
The scheme was not a success and the workers were informed it
was to be discontinued. Despite this, full payments were
made to the workers in December, 1990. The Company is not in
a position to fund extra costs other than the £5 per week
offered at conciliation.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the light of the submissions made and having regard to the
generally depressed state of the industry in which the Company is
involved, the Court recommends that the employer's offer made at
conciliation be accepted by the worker concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
9th March, 1992
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.