Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93161 Case Number: LCR14128 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WHITE BROTHERS JOINERY LIMITED - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
A claim for the application of the Construction Industry Supplements.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that there is merit in the Union claim and
accordingly recommends that it be conceded.
However noting the Company's position as outlined to the Court at
the hearing the Court further recommends that both parties enter
into negotiations as to how and when the balance of the
supplements may be paid.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93161 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14128
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WHITE BROTHERS JOINERY LIMITED
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. A claim for the application of the Construction Industry
Supplements.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company paid the first phase supplement of #17.50 to
its workers from the 1st September, 1991. The Union submitted
a claim to the Company in July, 1992 seeking the
implementation of the further phases of the Construction
Industry Supplements. Progress could not be made and the
matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. The
Company rejected an invitation to a conciliation conference on
the grounds that there was no dispute in their firm. On the
25th February, 1993, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court investigated the issue on the 15th June, 1993
in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is consistent with Clause 3, Annex 2 to Appendix
A of the P.E.S.P. for the Construction Industry/Joinery
Industry.
2. Joiners and Woodworking Machinists are specifically
mentioned as categories of workers covered under the
Registered Agreement for the Construction Industry.
3. In the absence of a joinery manufacturer's association, it
has always been custom and practice to apply the construction
rates of wages to joinery manufacturers.
4. The management of the Company has always used the rates of
wages in the Construction Industry as the comparator when
negotiations took place for wage increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has severe financial difficulties and is not
in a position to pay the increase sought.
2. The Company manufactures wooden doors and windows and is
in competition with cheaper PVC windows from Northern Ireland.
3. The building industry is going through a period of poor
trading and it is difficult to obtain work to sustain the
workforce at its present numbers.
4. Competitors are paying wages at a much lower level.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that there is merit in the Union claim and
accordingly recommends that it be conceded.
However noting the Company's position as outlined to the Court at
the hearing the Court further recommends that both parties enter
into negotiations as to how and when the balance of the
supplements may be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
30th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman
P.O'C./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.