LCR16566

SUBJECT:
1. Increased rate of pay.



BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is a large insulation company. It employs approximately 180 thermal insulators.

The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of originally seven and now four members for an increase in their rate of pay. In June, 1999, an agreement was reached between the Union and the Sheetmetal Manufacturers Association (SMA) on rates of pay. The Union states that the Company did not honour this agreement. The Company states that it employs thermal insulators and not sheetmetal workers. It is a member of the Insulation Contractors Association and is not party to this agreement.

The dispute was not resolved at local level. The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 27th of March, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of July, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The workers concerned work full time on light metal fabrication on site for the Company. The metal required for the work is delivered in several ton loads.


2. The workers are sheetmetal workers and should be paid in accordance with the June 1999 Agreement.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company employs thermal insulators, not sheetmetal workers.

2. There may be some sheetmetal work involved in thermal insulation. The sheetmetal work is for cladding only and involves light gauge metal. The work does not require the skill that sheetmetal workers have.

3. All workers employed by the Company are paid the craft rate of pay and allowances as set out in the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry.


RECOMMENDATION:

In this claim the Union are seeking parity of rates with those covered by an agreement with the Sheetmetal Manufacturers Association (SMA). It is noted that of approximately 180 employees of the Company, all of whom are engaged in identical work, only seven originally and now four, are associated with the present claim.

There is a long standing acceptance that the Company and its employees are encompassed by the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) for the Construction Industry. Under the REA, in addition to basic rates (which are currently under review), workers have a legally enforceable entitlement to significant allowances and to pension, assurance and sick pay arrangements. These benefits are not provided for in the SMA Agreement. In the Court's view, they cannot be disregarded in making fair comparison between both Agreements.

As the REA is the appropriate Agreement covering the Company and all of its employees, the terms of the SMA Agreement are not applicable in this case. For this reason the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
20th July, 2000______________________
G.B./B.C.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.