FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JAMES MC MAHON (DUBLIN) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rate of pay for Tanalith Protim and Vac Vac operations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of two workers for the application of an enhanced rate for Tanalith Protim and Pre-Vac operations (Timber Treatment processes). The claim has been ongoing since 1994 when the matter was the subject of a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission.
The Union argues that a number of companies in the timber and builder providers business carry out these processes and pay the workers involved a plus payment on top of the general operatives' rate. Management rejects the claim.
In June, 1997 the Union again sought the application of the plus payment. Local level discussions took place but agreement could not be reached and the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 27th of November, 1997. As progress could not be made the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of January, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of February, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The operation of these machines requires a lot of care and responsibility. The claim was set aside in 1994 to allow the operators complete training. The workers took part in a training course. The course paid particular attention to the safety measures which must be adhered to whilst carrying out the process.
2. The Company pays the operator of its Kiln Plant, which is a similar operation to the Tanalith Protim Plant, a plus payment.
3. A plus payment for this operation is paid in the industry generally. Quite a number of companies in the industry carry out this process. Many of the companies which would be regarded as the main competitors of James Mc Mahon Limited pay a plus payment to the operators.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has consistently applied the terms of the National Programmes, including the most recent agreement, Partnership 2000. It is clearly stipulated in Clause 6 of this agreement, that no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay and conditions of employment other than those provided for in Clauses 2 and 4, will be made during the currency of the agreement. This claim is clearly in breach of the terms of this agreement. Moreover, concession of the Union's claim to any degree would result in a series of "knock-on" claims from other areas within the Company.
2. In this specific case, the vast majority of the Company's competitors do not pay this premium rate. Therefore the implementation of this premium rate would place the Company at a unique disadvantage vis-�-vis its competitors.
3. The terms and conditions enjoyed by the Company's employees are among the best in the business. Unlike many of its major competitors the Company has excellent sick pay and pension schemes. Furthermore, employees are entitled to 24 days annual leave as against 20/22 which are applicable throughout the industry.
4. The Company has implemented, in full, Clause 3 of PESP through an increased contribution to the pension scheme. It is important to point out that the majority of its competitors failed to apply the full 3% of PESP notwithstanding the fact that many of its competitors do not have pension schemes.
5. The employees who have been involved in the timber treatment area have been doing the work over a six year period, and consequently it has been an integral part of their work during this time. The issue of additional payment never arose and therefore a claim to seek to apply it retrospectively is simply untenable.
6. The operatives are already in receipt of a premium rate of £225.34 per week. This rate applies to forklift truck drivers, docketmen and for treatment. There is a general labourer's rate of £218.19 in operation, although there is at present no member of staff on this rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions is satisfied that this claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Programme 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th February, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.