Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92388 Case Number: LCR13785 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WILLIAM COX AND SONS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning rates of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The case before the Court relates to the agreement of 1984 and
the interpretation of basic pay in the Construction Industry. The
Court in this case takes the view that basic pay is the
wage/salary which is used for the purpose of calculating overtime.
It is accepted by both parties that, in accordance with the terms
of the 1984 agreement, the employees should be paid the
Construction rate of pay plus 5%. It is the view of the Court
that the basic pay of craftsmen in the Construction Industry does
not at this time include the supplement paid in accordance with
the Labour Court Recommendation No. L.C.R. 13340. There are
specific arrangements in the Labour Court recommendation for the
consolidation of the payments under that Recommendation.
Further the payments recommended were only applicable to those
employees on the basic rate, where additional payments were made
which were less than the amount of the supplement the employees
concerned were to be paid the difference between the additional
payments and the supplement. In this case the Court considers
that payment should be effected which will reflect the above and
maintain the differential over the construction basic rate as
defined above.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92388 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13785
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WILLIAM COX AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which employs approximately 30 people is involved
in the manufacture and supply of roof lights and moulded plastic
components for the construction industry. In 1984, agreement was
reached between the parties that the workers concerned would be
paid the construction industry craft rate of pay plus 5%. In
1990, a joint working party on wage anomaly in the construction
industry was set up. The working party issued its report in
September, 1990 following which the employer side conceded that
the craft rate of pay should be increased by #43.70 per week
during the currency of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.). The increases were the subject of a Labour
Court investigation on 30th April, 1991. In July, 1991 the Court
issued Recommendation L.C.R. 13340 which recommended as follows:
(1) For those craftsmen in receipt of basic craft rate an
increase of #43.70 to be paid.
(2) The above increases to be phased in as follows:
40% on 1st September, 1991
30% on 1st September, 1992
30% on 1st April, 1993.
(3) The increases to be treated as a supplement to basic pay
in the first instance and be incorporated for all
purposes before the end of the P.E.S.P..
The Union claims that the workers concerned should be paid the
craft rate of pay with effect from 1st September, 1991, plus
5%. The Company in applying the supplement from 1st
September, 1991 deducted the 5% the workers are paid over the
craft rate. Local level discussions failed to resolve the
issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 10th June,
1992 and, as no agreement could be reached, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 6th July, 1992. The Court
hearing took place on 31st August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned entered into an agreement in good
faith in 1984. The Company should honour the agreement.
2. The workers concerned have honoured the agreement although
it was not always in their favour to do so, particularly as
the rate of increases in the construction industry was below
the norm achieved in manufacturing industry.
3. In return for 5% plus payment the workers gave up all
claims in respect of lunch allowance and payment for
travelling time.
4. The Labour Court in its Recommendation in respect of
craftsmen employed in the construction industry, recognised
that the basic rate of pay was out of line with craftsmen
employed in outside companies.
5. The basic rate of pay in the Company has always been
related to the basic hourly rate of craftsmen employed in the
construction industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The letter of October, 1984 is quite clear in that it was
agreed that the Company would set its craft rate at 5% above
the basic craft rate in the construction industry.
2. The supplement is not part of the basic rate. It will
only become part of the basic rate just prior to the end of
the P.E.S.P. in 1994.
3. The supplement paid to operatives in the construction
industry is only paid to those operatives on the basic rate.
It does not apply to operatives who have additional payments
in excess of the basic rate.
4. The Company has not as yet deviated from the 1984
agreement; however the Company has served notice on the Union
that it will be seeking a meeting to discuss the 1984
agreement in respect of the additional payments of 5% over the
basic rate.
5. When the Company agreed to the additional 5% on basic rate
it was, at that time, recognised by the Company that the basic
rate of pay in the construction industry was low.
6. If the Company is to survive it cannot pay wages and
conditions in excess of those paid by its competitors. All
employees in the Company are covered by a pension and sick pay
scheme which is not the case in respect of the Company's
competitors.
7. The Company is entitled to deduct additional bonus
payments from the supplement in line with the building
agreement. The agreement provides for payment to those
operatives who are on the basic rate only.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The case before the Court relates to the agreement of 1984 and
the interpretation of basic pay in the Construction Industry. The
Court in this case takes the view that basic pay is the
wage/salary which is used for the purpose of calculating overtime.
It is accepted by both parties that, in accordance with the terms
of the 1984 agreement, the employees should be paid the
Construction rate of pay plus 5%. It is the view of the Court
that the basic pay of craftsmen in the Construction Industry does
not at this time include the supplement paid in accordance with
the Labour Court Recommendation No. L.C.R. 13340. There are
specific arrangements in the Labour Court recommendation for the
consolidation of the payments under that Recommendation.
Further the payments recommended were only applicable to those
employees on the basic rate, where additional payments were made
which were less than the amount of the supplement the employees
concerned were to be paid the difference between the additional
payments and the supplement. In this case the Court considers
that payment should be effected which will reflect the above and
maintain the differential over the construction basic rate as
defined above.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
13th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.