FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MILNER OFFICE FURNITURE LIMITED - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Implementation of National Furniture Manufacturers' Association Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim covers 2 issues:-
1. Payment of 2% local bargaining under Clause 4 of Partnership 2000
2. Payment of an attendance bonus - 1st phase £10 from 1st of January, 1999 and 2nd phase of £7.20 from 1st of October, 1999.
The claim would come under the terms of the National Furniture Manufacturers' (NFMA) Agreement. The Company argues that as a result of leaving the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) a number of years ago, it is no longer bound by this agreement.
The parties attended a Labour Court hearing on the 20th of April, 1999, where it was decided that they should go to conciliation. They attended a conciliation conference on the 4th of May, 1999, at the Labour Relations Commission, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of May, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of June, 1999. Following the conciliation conference, the Company offered to pay the workers the attendance bonus of £17.20 in exchange for agreement on a number of issues (details supplied to the Court). The workers rejected the offer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union is only seeking what was agreed between it and the NFMA.
2. At present, the Company pays approximately £230 for a 39 hour week. The NFMA pays £222 per week, plus bonus schemes from 15% (giving £255) to 33% (giving £296).
3. The 2% local bargaining Clause of Partnership 2000 is for ongoing co-operation with new practices and training. The Company will expect the workers to avail of new practices but is not prepared to pay as little as 2%.
4. The Company made the offer of payment of the attendance bonus directly to the workers, without consulting the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company has been making a loss for a number of years. Losses are currently running at £10,000 - £15,000 per month.
2. The Company has not been associated with the CIF or the NFMA for a number of years, and has not followed any agreements made by this group.
3. The Company did offer to pay the attendance bonus to the workers in return for a number of concessions but the offer was rejected without any discussion.
4. The rates of pay currently in the Company are in the higher range of rates in the industry. Rates of pay have increased by 19% over the last 3 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the written and oral submissions made by the parties, and is of the view that there is a need for further discussion between the parties. It was indicated to the Court at the hearing that a basis for settlement of this dispute has been put forward and that some success had been reached.
The Court recommends that this set of proposals should be explored further to try and reach an agreement. Discussions should be between the parties and their representatives in an attempt to finalise the matter.
Any outstanding issues following these discussions may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th June, 1999______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.