Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95435 Case Number: LCR14928 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Agreed scales of pay and conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Comprehensive Agreement between the
parties was terminated by the Company on 4/7/86. This termination
was implemented in accordance with the terms of that Agreement.
The Court also notes that a new agreement was reached in 1989 in
relation to the introduction of Micro-Computers. This agreement
indicates an intention of the parties to negotiate a replacement
House agreement without any commitment from either party as to the
content of such agreement except in respect of the permanent
clerical staff in employment prior to the conclusion of such
agreement. No such agreement has been concluded to date.
It is the view of the Court that whilst the wording of the 1989
Agreement clearly indicated that the conditions etc. of existing
permanent clerical staff would be protected it also gave a clear
signal that new entrants would not necessarily be treated in he
same way.
The Court considers that, notwithstanding the fact that new
entrants have accepted the terms and conditions offered to the
individuals concerned, the Union is justified in seeking the
implementation of a common scale.
As the Union accepted in 1989 that "existing staff" were to be
treated in a particular way it follows that different conditions
(at least to some extent) would apply to future entrants.
Despite the long drawn out efforts of the parties prior to the
referral to the Court, the Court sees no alternative but to return
the issue of agreed new scales to the parties. The Court
accordingly recommends that the parties return to negotiation and
attempt to agree a new scale for entrants to the
Clerical/Administration posts.
Failing agreement within a 3 month period the parties may refer
back to the Court outlining the comparable employments and
salaries and the Court will then recommend a scale.
The other matters raised by the Union were not properly before the
Court. It is open to the Union to raise them again in the course
of the negotiations recommended above.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95435 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14928
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTIONS 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LTD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Agreed scales of pay and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves agreed rates of pay and conditions of
employment for new clerical staff employed by the Roadstone Group
of Companies. In 1986, the Companies gave the Union three months
notice of their intentions to terminate the comprehensive
agreement they had between them. The agreement included terms and
conditions of employment of clerical employees. The agreement
ceased on 3rd October, 1986. In 1989, the Companies and the Union
signed an agreement in relation to new technology.
3. There has been no agreement between the Companies and the
Union since 1986 in relation to the terms and conditions of
employment for new clerical appointees. Since 1990, twelve new
clerical staff have been recruited at reduced rates of pay and
longer working hours than those already employed by the Company.
4. The Union is claiming the same conditions of employment for
all new clerical staff as currently apply to existing staff. The
Company rejected the Union's claim.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 13th June, 1995. As no
agreement was possible the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 21st July, 1995 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 19th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management refused to extend the existing terms of
employment to new clerical recruits. They are paid
approximately #130.00 per week. The current pay scales
for Clerical Officer (C.O.) and Senior Clerical Officer
(S.C.O.) in the Company are #149.40 to #262.00 and
#191.70 to #286.10 respectively. It is not acceptable
to the Union that new clerical staff should be
exploited by the Company in such a manner.
2. The Companies have been very successful and profitable
over the years. The interim results for this year show
a further increase in profits. The employees have
contributed to this success by accepting modest pay
increases under the terms of the various national pay
agreements. The small number of clerical staff
recruited should be paid the current C.O. or S.C.O.
rate for the job.
3. The Company cannot expect clerical staff recruited
under the present scheme to live on #130.00 per week.
The staff co-operated with management on the
introduction of new technology and work practices. The
Company can sustain the cost of extending the same
rates of pay and conditions of employment to the new
clerical staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1982, the Company has identified that the
earnings of clerical employees were too high relative
to:-
(a) other employees in the Roadstone Companies
(b) in relation to comparable employees of
competitor companies.
Attempts were made to resolve the issue without
success. The matter was the subject of a number of
Labour Court hearings but still no progress was made to
resolve the matter.
2. The pay rates and conditions of employment for new
entrants to the clerical grades are in line with those
offered by our competitors. If the Company is to
survive in a very competitive market it must pay these
rates of pay. The terms and conditions of employment
have been accepted by the individuals concerned.
3. There have been dramatic changes in the building and
construction industry over the past ten to fifteen
years. The market has become more competitive. The
concept of individual contracts is now accepted and is
appropriate in to-day's business environment. It is
not the intention of the Companies to abuse that
position. The Companies must be allowed to achieve
their objectives of bringing administration costs into
line with that of competitors. It is in the long term
interests of both the Companies and the individuals
concerned that costs are reduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Comprehensive Agreement between the
parties was terminated by the Company on 4/7/86. This termination
was implemented in accordance with the terms of that Agreement.
The Court also notes that a new agreement was reached in 1989 in
relation to the introduction of Micro-Computers. This agreement
indicates an intention of the parties to negotiate a replacement
House agreement without any commitment from either party as to the
content of such agreement except in respect of the permanent
clerical staff in employment prior to the conclusion of such
agreement. No such agreement has been concluded to date.
It is the view of the Court that whilst the wording of the 1989
Agreement clearly indicated that the conditions etc. of existing
permanent clerical staff would be protected it also gave a clear
signal that new entrants would not necessarily be treated in he
same way.
The Court considers that, notwithstanding the fact that new
entrants have accepted the terms and conditions offered to the
individuals concerned, the Union is justified in seeking the
implementation of a common scale.
As the Union accepted in 1989 that "existing staff" were to be
treated in a particular way it follows that different conditions
(at least to some extent) would apply to future entrants.
Despite the long drawn out efforts of the parties prior to the
referral to the Court, the Court sees no alternative but to return
the issue of agreed new scales to the parties. The Court
accordingly recommends that the parties return to negotiation and
attempt to agree a new scale for entrants to the
Clerical/Administration posts.
Failing agreement within a 3 month period the parties may refer
back to the Court outlining the comparable employments and
salaries and the Court will then recommend a scale.
The other matters raised by the Union were not properly before the
Court. It is open to the Union to raise them again in the course
of the negotiations recommended above.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th October, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. -------------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY