Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95142 Case Number: LCR14800 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ANORD ELECTRICAL CONTROLS (MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT) - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the application of JLC rates of pay including proficiency pay.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that, whilst the Company is not covered by the
terms of the National Joint Industrial Council (N.J.I.C.)
Agreement, it had over the years paid employees in accordance with
those rates of pay.
The Court finds that, in the present circumstances, in moving to a
manufacturing base and with the necessity to be competitive, the
Company requires to introduce changes which will enable it to
operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Accordingly, with a view to addressing the aspirations of the
Union and the Company's labour costs in a manufacturing
enterprise, the Court recommends that the parties immediately
commence meaningful negotiations with a view to agreeing:-
(1) Changes in work practices based on the report of the
Joint Working Party.
(2) Basic rates of pay which would be applicable to the
Company and reflect pay rates in the industry and the
added responsibilities identified by the Joint Working
Party Report. The Court notes, the Company in the event
of a successful conclusion to the negotiations would
match or even exceed the rates applicable under the
Registered Agreement.
(3) The Court would expect that negotiations would be
concluded no later than the 31st July, 1995.
In the event that agreement is not reached by this date, the Court
will consider the progress made and issue a definitive
recommendation.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95142 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14800
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ANORD ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of JLC rates of pay
including proficiency pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company produces electrical control panels which are
used as switching units in large industrial
installations. Up to 1993, the Company's rates of pay
were equivalent to those agreed by the Electrical
Contracting Joint Industrial Council (JIC). The Union
complained to the Labour Court that the Company was in
breach of the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) for
the Electrical Contracting Industry. The Court in
REA1193 on 25th March, 1993 recommended as follows:-
"At the hearing of this case the parties agreed
that the description of work carried out by the
firm as presented by the Company was accurate.
Having considered the description at length, the
Court is satisfied that it relates solely to
manufacturing and does not come within the ambit of
the Registered Employment Agreement for the
Electrical Contracting Industry. Accordingly, the
Court does not find the Company to be in breach of
the Registered Employment Agreement as claimed by
the Union."
2. The Union subsequently decided to pursue its claim as an
industrial relations dispute on the basis that the
Company had broken an agreement to apply the same rates
as the electrical contracting industry. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
3. The first conciliation conference was held on 30th
August, 1994. The Company outlined the proposals for a
survival plan. In relation to the electricians, the
Company claimed that some of the work of the
electricians was inappropriate to their skills and was
more appropriate to general operatives with training.
4. The parties agreed to set up a Joint Working Party "to
examine practical changes in work practices." The Union
envisaged that the Working Party's report would form the
basis of an agreement which would initially increase the
workers' pay to JIC rates. The Union would then discuss
rates which would reflect higher responsibilities. The
Company understood the Union's aspiration but it did not
concede it.
5. The Working Party produced a detailed report which
identified a number of tasks which could be undertaken
by suitably trained general operatives (details
supplied). The report was considered at a second
conciliation conference on 13th February, 1995. At the
conference, the Union rejected the Working Party's
report as it was not prepared to consider giving
members' work to general operatives. The Union restated
its claim for JIC rates. After implementation of the
JIC rates, the Union was prepared to discuss any agenda
which the Company may have.
6. It was not possible to resolve the dispute by
conciliation. On 22nd February, 1995 the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 9th May, 1995 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has a long-standing agreement with the Company
that it will pay the appropriate JIC rates. Until June,
1992, the Company was a member of the Association of
Electrical Contractors of Ireland. They were excluded
for non-compliance with the agreement.
2. The Company has always accepted its liability to pay the
appropriate JIC rates. On occasions the Union has had
to advise the Company that it was in breach of its
agreement with the Union by not paying the appropriate
JIC rates. The Company has never denied that an
agreement existed, only that it was unable to pay or
that the Union had not advised that an increase was due.
3. The Union's agreement with the Company has been well
established by custom and practice. The Union cannot
negotiate new agreements with the Company while it has
breached an existing agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not bound by the JIC agreement. This
matter has already been adjudicated upon by the Labour
Court. The Company recognises the need to provide
reasonable increases to workers. This must be in the
context of a healthy and competitive business.
2. Any increases in pay can only be afforded in the context
of improved competitiveness. Therefore the report of
the Joint Working Party should be the basis for
negotiations on an improved wage rate.
3. It is unreasonable of the Union to negotiate only on the
basis of rates appropriate to the electrical contracting
rather than the electrical manufacturing industry. A
completely different cost-base and market applies. The
Company is willing to negotiate on security of
employment and rates of pay. It is willing to do this
on the basis that the report of the Joint Working Party
should form the basis of negotiations between the
parties in relation to change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that, whilst the Company is not covered by the
terms of the National Joint Industrial Council (N.J.I.C.)
Agreement, it had over the years paid employees in accordance with
those rates of pay.
The Court finds that, in the present circumstances, in moving to a
manufacturing base and with the necessity to be competitive, the
Company requires to introduce changes which will enable it to
operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Accordingly, with a view to addressing the aspirations of the
Union and the Company's labour costs in a manufacturing
enterprise, the Court recommends that the parties immediately
commence meaningful negotiations with a view to agreeing:-
(1) Changes in work practices based on the report of the
Joint Working Party.
(2) Basic rates of pay which would be applicable to the
Company and reflect pay rates in the industry and the
added responsibilities identified by the Joint Working
Party Report. The Court notes, the Company in the event
of a successful conclusion to the negotiations would
match or even exceed the rates applicable under the
Registered Agreement.
(3) The Court would expect that negotiations would be
concluded no later than the 31st July, 1995.
In the event that agreement is not reached by this date, the Court
will consider the progress made and issue a definitive
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.