FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : CARROLL JOINERY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of CIF rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures and distributes panel doors at a plant in Ballingarry, Co. Tipperary. It employs 74 workers, 46 carpenters represented by UCATT and 28 operatives represented by SIPTU. Up to 1993 the workers were on CIF rates of pay. The Company, however, ceased to pay CIF rates on the basis that it was a product manufacturer and not a construction company. The position was upheld by the Labour Court (LCR4126 refers). The rates in the company are now substantially behind CIF rates. Earlier this year there was some unofficial action at the plant in pursuance of a claim for an increase in basic pay and a return to CIF rates which at the time stood at about £8.00 per hour for carpenters. In local negotiations, the Company indicated that it was willing to explore a productivity based bonus scheme, but not a straightforward pay increase over and above the terms of PPF. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in April, June and July, 2000 at which the Company produced proposals prepared by the Irish Productivity Centre, and copied to the Union's Industrial Engineer, which included an increase in the basic pay and a productivity bonus scheme together with increased flexibility between general operatives and craftworkers. The Unions rejected the package. The Unions proposed that if the Company were to concede the CIF rates of pay applying at that time i.e. £8
per hour, that they would accept this as the factory rate and would not pursue CIF rates being negotiated at that time. The Unions were also willing to accept the flexibility proposals contained in the document. The proposal was not acceptable to the Company. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th September, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd October, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are being paid an hourly rate of £6.63 per hour for craftsmen and £6.06 per hour for general operatives. These employees are highly skilled and the products that they produce are second to none. They are being treated very unfairly by their employer.
2. There is a building boom at the moment and the claimants, as part of the construction industry, believe that they should be on the same rates of pay as their colleagues in the industry.
3. Employees of Carrrolls Joinery travel to building sites and instal their products which strengthens the claimants' link to the construction industry. They are entitled to the full CIF rates of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for parity with the CIF rates was already the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation (4126) in June, 1993.The Court rejected the claim. The rates of pay have increased in line with nationally agreed increments since 1993. Recommendation 4126 still applies.
2. The productivity scheme, as prepared by the IPC, offers employees an opportunity to earn up to 15% extra on top of their current basic rate. On acceptance and implementation of an overall programme, the base rates would be increased by an additional 8% flexibility premium. Furthermore, the productivity element offers the potential to earn a further 7%. The targets, in relation to this scheme, are vital to the Company's future and as such would be of mutual benefit to both parties.
3. The claim to increase the Base Rate is a cost- increasing claim and is specifically excluded from both the Partnership 2000 and Programme for Prosperity and Fairness agreements. Furthermore, any further increases in the Base Rate, which are not partially self-financing, would adversely affect the Company's competitiveness. In the light of international cost structures this would eventually lead to the closure of the production unit at Ballingarry.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given consideration to all aspects of this claim , the Court is of the view that the workers involved in this claim do not come within the scope of the rates applicable to CIF craftsmen and therfore does not recommend concesssion of the CIF rates of pay.
The Court notes the competitive nature of this industry and the difficulties this presents for the Company at this point in time. However, the Court is of the view that there is a basis for resolution of this dispute through the proposed gain sharing/ partially self- financing
productivity programme.
The Court recommends that the ICTU industrial engineer, already involved in this process, should be given every opportunity to liaise with management with a view to both sides concluding negotiations on the proposed programme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.