Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92636 Case Number: LCR13830 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SANDOZ SITE - and - CORK BUILDING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Site Agreement Terms.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having read the submissions of the parties and
considered the substantial verbal arguments arising, has come to
the conclusion that the heavy reliance of the Union group on Cork
local bargaining criteria cannot be sustained. The Court noted
that many sites did not have such agreements.
The Court believes that 'Site agreements' for the Construction
Industry were appropriate in their day but with the improved wage
structures now existing in the industry, such Agreements are not
necessary.
The Court accordingly supports the Construction Industry
Federation in rejecting the Unions' claim for a site agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92636 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13830
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SANDOZ SITE
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
CORK BUILDING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Site Agreement Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Sandoz Chemicals Plant at Ringaskiddy is currently under
construction by a number of companies represented by the
Construction Industry Federation. There are approximately 480
workers employed on the site and they are represented by the Cork
Building Group of Unions.
The Unions are seeking a Site Agreement for their members.
Specifically they seek:
(i) A Site allowance of 35p per hour.
(ii) An Industrial Relations Incentive of 35p per hour.
(iii) Payment in lieu of notice (P.I.L.O.N.), in accordance
with the normal structure for such payments.
The Company rejects the Unions' claim on the grounds that
appropriate nationally agreed rates apply on the site, and that
Site Agreements have not existed since the mid 1980s. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 25th of August, 1992 and the 2nd
October, 1992, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of October, 1992
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 22nd of October,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Historically, Site Agreements have served as an inducement
to the skilled labour force to remain on a site. The Site
Agreement is as important now, given the general shortage of
alternative employment, as it was in the past, when there was
a surfeit of skilled workers.
2. In the early and mid 1980s, as larger sites went on the
decline, various amended 'Site Agreements' were reached with
C.I.F. (who contended that these projects were not 'major'
sites), with the workers' co-operation, so as to avoid the
possibility of disputes arising. From the mid 1980s, the
C.I.F. unilaterally decided that there would be no further
Site Agreements, without consultation with or agreement from
the workers.
3. The present situation is once-off and workers need to
maximise their earnings whilst employed, to tide them over the
periods when they will be out of work.
4. The Client (Sandoz) would be prepared to make an modest
offer, which would be acceptable to the workers. The
contractors are worried that they would have to pay this offer
on other sites.
EMPLOYERS'/C.I.F.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No site agreement has existed in the country since the
Moneypoint agreement in 1988. Site agreements were originally
introduced as an expediency to attract workers to remote major
industrial projects. In contrast, the site is close to a
large urban area and is covered by the Cork Travel Agreement.
2. In earlier years, when Site Agreements were in operation,
travel allowances were not the norm, nor were the rates of pay
and conditions of employment now operating - travel, meal
allowances, tool allowances, daily supplements, etc. All
employees on site are members of the appropriate Trade Union
and are covered for Pension, Mortality and Sick-Pay Insurance.
3. In recent years other major construction sites have cost
more and have had a larger workforce than this site with no
Site Agreement terms in operation.
4. The Unions' claims are not acceptable under the
constraints of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having read the submissions of the parties and
considered the substantial verbal arguments arising, has come to
the conclusion that the heavy reliance of the Union group on Cork
local bargaining criteria cannot be sustained. The Court noted
that many sites did not have such agreements.
The Court believes that 'Site agreements' for the Construction
Industry were appropriate in their day but with the improved wage
structures now existing in the industry, such Agreements are not
necessary.
The Court accordingly supports the Construction Industry
Federation in rejecting the Unions' claim for a site agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
4th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.