Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93189 Case Number: LCR14230 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MCKEON STONE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning payments due under the Construction Agreement and Phase 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written statements finds that there was
agreement between the parties for the payment of the supplement.
This should not be withdrawn.
The Court recommends therefore that the parties discuss the
present situation and seek to agree arrangements regarding the
payment of outstanding phases of the supplement which will take
full account of the Company's present difficult financial
situation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93189 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14230
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: McKEON STONE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning payments due under the Construction
Agreement and Phase 3 of the P.E.S.P.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 53 workers in the production of
monumental stonework. The workers became unionised in 1987.
An Agreement was reached in March, 1988 to pay the rates as
set by the Registered Employment Agreement for the Building
Industry.
2. During the currency of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), discussions took place between the
Construction Industry Federation (C.I.F.) and the Building
Unions concerning pay for craft workers and general
operatives. The discussions were in accordance with the
provisions of "Annex 2" of the P.E.S.P. (details supplied).
Labour Court Recommendation number 13340 issued on 10th July,
1991.
3. Despite the fact that the Recommendation was rejected by
the Unions, the Company made a payment of #6.90 per week to
its workers as provided for in L.C.R. 13340. Subsequently the
C.I.F. and the Building Unions agreed that the pay rates would
be increased. As a result, the Company paid a total
supplemental increase of #15 per week to its workers.
4. The second phase of the supplemental increase fell due on
1st September, 1992. The Company advised the Union that the
Agreement did not apply to its workers and that the first
phase was paid in error. The Company also stated that it
could not afford to pay the third phase of the P.E.S.P.
5. Both claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 18th
February, 1993. No agreement was possible and the disputes
were referred to the Labour Court on 23rd March, 1993, under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Portlaoise on 1st September,
1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has an Agreement with the Company for the
application of Construction Industry pay rates to the workers.
This Agreement has been confirmed by the Company on a number
of occasions (details supplied). The Company has already paid
the first phase of the Construction Agreement and it cannot
now renege on the second phase, particularly as the Agreement
was freely entered into by both sides.
2. The Union does not accept the Company's position that it
is unable to pay the third phase of the P.E.S.P. It has
benefited from significant increases in productivity in recent
years. The Company has a large amount of orders on its books
and it is expected that the outlook for the Construction
Industry will improve when the structural fund projects begin.
The Union is seeking the payment of the third phase of the
P.E.S.P. with full retrospection to 1st April, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company paid the first instalment of the Construction
Agreement at a time when the Union was exerting pressure by
means of one-day stoppages. Since then, the Company has
studied the Agreement in detail and is satisfied that
monumental works are not included. The Company accepts that
it has in the past used the Construction Industry pay rates by
way of a guideline. The Company's present financial
difficulties (details supplied) dictate that it must shift
from this position. Paying the full Construction Agreement
increases will leave the Company uncompetitive. The Company's
competitors have not paid any of the increases. It should be
noted that in the negotiations which led to the Construction
Agreement, the Unions undertook to ensure that there would not
be repercussive claims in industries not covered by the
Registered Agreement.
2. The Company's financial position does not allow it to pay
the third phase of the P.E.S.P. Since 1990, 17 workers have
been made redundant and the Company is in a loss-making cycle.
There are no funds available for capital expenditure and with
competitors operating on lower wage rates the outlook for the
Company is not good.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written statements finds that there was
agreement between the parties for the payment of the supplement.
This should not be withdrawn.
The Court recommends therefore that the parties discuss the
present situation and seek to agree arrangements regarding the
payment of outstanding phases of the supplement which will take
full account of the Company's present difficult financial
situation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
28th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.