FULL RECOMMENDATION
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 DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay issue arising from the employment of self-employed carpenters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a pre-cast concrete producer based in Howth, Co. Dublin, employing 111 workers. The dispute concerns a claim by the Unions for an increase in pay for its carpenter members arising from a differential in pay between their rate and the rate paid to workers taken on by the Company on a self-employed "C45" basis. The permanent carpenters, numbering 12, are paid a rate of £6.41 per hour compared to a rate of £11.00 per hour paid to the contract carpenters.
The Union side has quantified its claim at £30 per week, having factored in the benefits arising from permanency, e.g., holidays, bonus, PRSI, etc. Following an agreement made in 1994, only national agreements apply in the Company and the terms of the Construction Industry Registered Agreement do not apply. The Unions have questioned the legality of employing workers on a self-employed basis in a factory context, and have raised the issue with the Social Welfare and Revenue authorities.
The Company's position is that it had no choice but to employ carpenters on a contract basis as it found it impossible to recruit experienced carpenters on the basis of its standard terms and conditions. The nett cost to the Company is approximately the same for contract and permanent carpenters when the cost of social insurance, holidays, etc., is considered.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 19th of September, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 12th of November, 1997.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the Agreement on Wages and Conditions of Employment. If the Unions sought increased wages or improved conditions through normal procedures, the Company's response would be that Partnership 2000 should be abided by. Notwithstanding this, the Company has changed its working conditions without consideration to the workforce.
2. The Company is suppressing the wage-rate for this highly-skilled area by operating another wage-structure thereby avoiding having to pay a proper hourly rate to the workers concerned.
3. The hourly differential should be paid for the extra period during which the Company has deviated from the agreed Wages and Conditions of Employment, with the understanding that the rates would revert back to normal when the Company ceases to be in breach of the agreement on Wages and Conditions of Employment.
4. The Company's description of the workers concerned is inaccurate and does not comply with the relevant Revenue Commissioners' conditions on the RCT 1 form.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim presented by the Unions is cost-increasing and is precluded under Clause 6 of Partnership 2000.
2. The nett cost of employees and self-employed carpenters is approximately the same. However, employees of the Company are provided with tools and safety equipment. By April, 1998, when the Company pays the second phase of Partnership 2000, the nett cost of employees will actually exceed the cost of self-employed carpenters.
3. Employees of the Company get the first offer of overtime and the benefit of notice should a redundancy situation arise.
4. The Company only engaged in the employment of self-employed carpenters as a last resort, having contacted the Unions and having had discussions with the then shop steward.
5. The Company is committed to using directly employed carpenters where possible and has increased the number of its apprentices in order to ensure that it has a good supply of carpenters and will not have to resort to using self-employed carpenters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Some of the points raised in relation to self-employed status are more proper to other State agencies.
In relation to the wage claim, on the basis of the Company statement of intention to cease recruiting self-employed carpenters at the earliest possible opportunity, the Court does not, in the circumstances, recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st of November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.