Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94219 Case Number: LCR14515 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TECHRETE LIMITED - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Dispute Concerning 1. Application of the Construction Industry Supplement. 2. Grossing up of plus payments.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the submissions of the parties
makes the following recommendations.
1. Payment of the Construction Industry Supplement.
The Court does not find grounds for concession of the claim
and accordingly it is rejected.
2. "Tool Allowance"
The Court recommends that #50 gross be paid to all the workers
concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94219 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14515
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TECHRETE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
Dispute Concerning
1. Application of the Construction Industry Supplement.
2. Grossing up of plus payments.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
The company is a specialist precast concrete manufacturer
located at Howth, Co. Dublin. It employs seventy workers.
The dispute concerns twelve carpenters. The claims were
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 9th January, 5th July, 1993 and
7th February, 1994, without agreement being reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th April,
1994. A Court hearing was held on the 24th May, 1994.
CLAIM 1 BACKGROUND:
The Union submitted a claim to the Company in 1991 for
payment of the Construction Industry Supplement agreed
between the C.I.F. and construction industry group of Unions
in 1991. The supplement was paid in three phases between
1991 and 1994. The Company's workers' pay rates in 1991 were
comparable to those of Construction Industry workers who had
received the first phase of the supplement. The Unions
claimed that the remaining two phases (totalling #32.09),
already paid to workers in the Construction Industry, should
be paid to the workers concerned as their rates had fallen
below those of comparable craft workers in the Construction
Industry. Management rejected the claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company gave an undertaking to the Unions in 1991
that the pay rates of carpenters in Techrete would be
kept in line with comparable workers on Construction
Industry rates. The first phase of the supplement was
not applicable as the Company's rates at the time were
equal to Construction Industry rates.
2. Since 1992, with the application of the other phases of
the supplement the pay rates of the workers concerned
have fallen substantially behind the wage rates of
comparable workers covered by the Construction Industry
Agreement. Workers in Techrete are now on a gross wage
of #195.57 as opposed to #227.66 for Construction
Industry craftsmen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Construction Industry Supplement was negotiated
solely for construction craftsmen working under the
Construction Industry Agreement. This agreement applies
only to building and civil engineering workers employed
under the Registered Agreement. This position has been
upheld by the Labour Court. (LCR's 14126, 14127 refer)
Techrete is a manufacturing Company and is not covered
by the particular agreement.
2. The Company's wage rates compare very favourably with
those in the Construction Industry. There are also
ample opportunities for overtime working.
3. The Company has sustained significant losses in recent
years and this trend has continued in 1994 (details
supplied to the Court). It faces very keen competition
in its main market (U.K.). The Company cannot afford to
concede the Unions' claim.
CLAIM 2 BACKGROUND:
Following negotiations between the Company and four
carpenters in 1993, Management adjusted their "tool
allowance" from #35 tax free to #50 per week gross and also
paid these four workers lump sums of #400. Carpenters
subsequently recruited were paid a tool allowance of #35 per
week gross. The Unions claimed that they made no agreement
with the Company on this issue.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
The Unions cannot agree with the Company's decision to
pay some workers a tool allowance of #50 and other workers
#35. This situation is causing problems within the
workforce because it is very inequitable. All workers should
have the same conditions of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The four carpenters accepted the Company's offer in 1993.
They all had long service with the Company and also accepted
the #400 lump sums and as a" buy out". All workers
subsequently recruited accepted their conditions of
employment stipulating a tool allowance of #35 per week,
taxable. The Company cannot afford to increase the allowance
to #50. The agreement with the four workers resulted in an
increase in Company costs which it could ill afford.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the submissions of the parties
makes the following recommendations.
1. Payment of the Construction Industry Supplement.
The Court does not find grounds for concession of the claim
and accordingly it is rejected.
2. "Tool Allowance"
The Court recommends that #50 gross be paid to all the workers
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th July, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.