Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92520 Case Number: LCR13761 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROADSTONE COMPANIES - and - ROADSTONE GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning review of productivity agreement (various claims) and a claim for a 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
3. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues before it.
On the question of the Unions' proposal of a review of the
Productivity Agreement the Court is of the opinion that in the
absence of any mutually agreed agenda such a review would serve no
useful purpose.
In this regard therefore the Court does not feel that it can
recommend that such a review should take place. It notes however,
in this context the Company's agreement to an examination of the
Pension and Sick Pay schemes and recommends that for the present
that this should be accepted by the Unions as a reasonable
response to the overall claim.
On the issue of the Unions' claim for 3% under the terms of Clause
3 of P.E.S.P., having regard to an agreement already made in a
directly related Company, the Court recommends that the Company
concede the 3% on basic pay.
In return for this the Court recommends that the Unions agree to
items 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the terms proposed by the Company together
with Item 3 subject to the same conditions as set out by the
provisions on the issue of breaks contained in the agreement of
2nd September quoted in Appendix III of the Unions' submission
where such provisions are relevant to particular locations.
The parties should undertake to arrange negotiations on the
specific problems which the Company state exist under heading 4 of
the Employer's proposals without delay.
Having regard to the circumstances which gave rise to the delay in
processing these matters which was clearly not the fault of either
party involved the Court recommends that in these circumstances
the payment of the 3% be made with effect from 1st July, 1992.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92520 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13761
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROADSTONE COMPANIES
and
ROADSTONE GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning review of productivity agreement (various
claims) and a claim for a 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1991 the Unions lodged a number of claims in the
context of a review of a 1985 Productivity Agreement. The claims
were as follows:
(1) Creation of new top grade and abolition of the two lower
grades.
(2) Claim for shortening of scale.
(3) Average pay for annual leave.
(4) Improved Christmas bonus.
(5) Improved service leave.
(6) Improved pension scheme.
(7) Proper sick pay scheme.
(8) Improved protective clothing and footwear.
The Companies resisted the claims on the basis that the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) was being finalised
and it was inappropriate to discuss such a review. On the 26th
April, 1991 the parties met at local level. The Company stated
that, as P.E.S.P. had been agreed, any claim would have to be
considered within its terms.
3. The Unions sought agreement to the appointment of an
independent assessor to evaluate the merits of the parties'
positions. The Companies rejected the suggestion. The Unions
carried out an assessment without the co-operation of the
Companies (details supplied to the Court) and presented the report
to the Companies on 7th April, 1992.
4. The Unions claimed a 3% increase in pay under Clause 2 of
P.E.S.P. on 7th April, 1992. A meeting between the parties took
place on 24th April, 1992 at which the Unions raised the
productivity study and other claims. The Companies rejected the
report mainly on the grounds that it was inaccurate as it did not
take a number of factors into account. On the other claims the
Companies indicated that in return for a 3% pay rise it was
seeking the following concessions:-
1. Elimination of supply of milk.
2. Workers to clock in 5 minutes early.
3. Introduction of Electronic Funds Transfer.
4. Breaks to be staggered.
5. Overtime to commence after 7/8 hours working.
On the question of pension and sick pay schemes a joint working
party has been set-up and is functioning.
5. The Unions rejected the Companies' offer and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 6th May, 1992.
Conciliation conferences were held on 29th May, 1992 and 28th
August, 1992. Following the conciliation conferences the Company
modified its position to an increase in pay of 3% of the basic or
2% on the basic rate with the final 1% being referred to the
Labour Court in return for agreement on the following list of
proposals:
(1) Electronic funds transfer when systems in place -
meanwhile cashing of cheques not to interfere with
normal business.
(2) Starting and finishing times to be adhered to - employees
to report to work sites after clocking in and clock out
after finishing time.
(3) Breaks to be confined to the times allowed. To meet the
requirements of business and facilitate continuous
working of plant and where practical and necessary breaks
will be staggered.
(4) Full co-operation in relation to flexibility and
interchangeability between operators and jobs.
(5) Both parties reaffirm their commitment to adhere to
procedures set down in the Comprehensive Agreement.
(6) Full co-operation with the introduction of changes
necessary to achieve required standards and productivity
improvements and with the introduction of new technology
and products.
(7) Because of the nature and structure of the Roadstone
companies it will be necessary to agree details at site
level.
The Unions rejected the offer as they considered that no further
concessions regarding productivity were required or justified.
6. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent
of the parties referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 4th September, 1992. The Court issued its recommendation by
letter dated 11th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Companies have already achieved considerable
productivity gains under the 1985 Productivity Agreement
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The Companies proposed regarding Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. has
not emerged in any other employment where a settlement has
been reached.
3. Another related Company has conceded the 3% increase with
effect from 1st June, 1992 with no preconditions (details
supplied to the Court).
4. The Companies are in a profitable position and together
with another Company control most of the domestic market.
This Company's pay and conditions are superior to the
Roadstone Companies. The other Companies cited as competitors
are small operators and do not greatly impinge on the
Companies activities
5. The workers have already contributed greatly to increased
productivity through greater flexibility and increasing output
despite the number of redundancies achieved under the
Productivity Agreement. Accordingly the Court is asked to
recommend a method of assessing the validity of the Unions'
claims and a pay increase of 3% from 1st June, 1992 in return
for either electronic funds on a voluntary basis or other
concessions as follows:
No. 2 - Delete.
No. 3 - Substitute "at" for "after".
No. 4 - Amend to read "morning breaks maybe staggered
where required" and "proper facilities in
accordance with the requirements of safety and
hygiene will be provided at work stations".
No. 4 - Delete passage and substitute "there will be
flexibility and interchangeability of employees
within and between operations and processed
plants in a location and/or on a Company site as
required subject to the appropriate skills of the
individuals and the necessary safety
requirements.
No. 5 - Agreed.
No. 6 - Addendum "as per Clause 3.1.2. of the
Comprehensive Agreement.
No. 7 - Amend to read ".... details with the appropriate
Unions....".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There have been dramatic changes in the nature and
structure of the Building and Construction Industry in recent
years. New plants and operations continue to come on stream
with total flexibility and interchangeability and with none of
the demarcations experienced by the Roadstone Companies.
2. Output decreased in 1991 and there will be a further drop
in 1992. The fall in output and increased competition has
resulted in considerable pressure on prices.
3. In order to remain viable and maintain jobs the Companies
must cut costs where possible.
4. The pay and conditions of the workers are better than the
Companies competitors within the exception of one. This
particular Company caters for a particular niche in the
market.
5. P.E.S.P. provides for an increase up to but not exceeding
3% of the weekly/monthly basic pay cost of the group of
employees (when overtime and other allowances are taken into
account this works out at 2% of basic pay of each worker).
This increase must take full account of competitiveness and
the need for flexibility and change and workers' contribution
to such changes - hence the concessions sought by the
Companies.
6. The Companies' offer is fair and reasonable within the
terms of P.E.S.P. and all other claims are outside of Clause 5
of P.E.S.P. as they are cost increasing.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues before it.
On the question of the Unions' proposal of a review of the
Productivity Agreement the Court is of the opinion that in the
absence of any mutually agreed agenda such a review would serve no
useful purpose.
In this regard therefore the Court does not feel that it can
recommend that such a review should take place. It notes however,
in this context the Company's agreement to an examination of the
Pension and Sick Pay schemes and recommends that for the present
that this should be accepted by the Unions as a reasonable
response to the overall claim.
On the issue of the Unions' claim for 3% under the terms of Clause
3 of P.E.S.P., having regard to an agreement already made in a
directly related Company, the Court recommends that the Company
concede the 3% on basic pay.
In return for this the Court recommends that the Unions agree to
items 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the terms proposed by the Company together
with Item 3 subject to the same conditions as set out by the
provisions on the issue of breaks contained in the agreement of
2nd September quoted in Appendix III of the Unions' submission
where such provisions are relevant to particular locations.
The parties should undertake to arrange negotiations on the
specific problems which the Company state exist under heading 4 of
the Employer's proposals without delay.
Having regard to the circumstances which gave rise to the delay in
processing these matters which was clearly not the fault of either
party involved the Court recommends that in these circumstances
the payment of the 3% be made with effect from 1st July, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
22nd October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning the Recommendation should be addressed to Mr.
Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.