FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : KILSARAN CONCRETE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH CONCRETE FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Wages. (2) Wage round dates. (3) Holiday pay. (4) Annual bonus. (5) Sick pay. (6) Pension.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1964 in Kilsaran, Co. Louth. Its business involves the production and supply of concrete materials to the construction industry.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of members to bring their pay and conditions of employment into line with the Company's two main competitors Roadstone and Readymix.
The Unions' claim is as follows:
(1) Increased rate of pay.
(2) Wage rounds to be brought forward.
(3) Inclusion of 50% of overtime in holiday pay.
(4) Introduction of an annual bonus.
(5) Improved sick pay and pension schemes.
The Company states that it cannot meet the Unions' substantial claim but made an offer to (1) increase the basic pay by 50p per hour from the 4th of September, 2000, and
(2) to negotiate the introduction of 50% overtime to be included in holiday pay. The Company does not wish to introduce an annual bonus at this time and sees no basis to bring the wage round dates forward. The Company states that sick pay and pension schemes have recently been reviewed and significant benefit increases are likely.
The Company's offer was rejected by the Unions who are seeking 100% concession of the entire claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 18th of September, 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 25th of January, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a huge difference in the rates of pay and conditions of employment between the Company and its two main competitors and the workers concerned are not willing to tolerate this situation any longer.
2. The Company is profitable and very successful.
3. The rate of pay must be increased, the wage round dates brought forward, 50% of overtime must be included in holiday pay, an annual bonus introduced and the
sick pay and pension schemes improved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The business is family run and cannot be compared with Roadstone and Readymix.
2. The Company is operating in a very competitive market.
3. The current rates of pay and conditions of employment within the Company were agreed with the Unions in 1998 and since then all increases due under the National Agreements have been applied.
4. The offer made by the Company was rejected by the Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the issues in dispute. The Court notes the point raised by the Company that it is operating in a "fiercely competitive market" and is not commercially comparable with the two top companies in this industry. The Court is of the view that the differences in pay and conditions of employment between this Company and those two companies are too wide and recommends that steps should be taken to provide enhanced conditions on a phased basis.
The Company itself has recognised the need to improve rates of pay over and above the terms of the PPF and has offered to include an element of overtime in pay for annual leave and consequently made an offer to try and address the situation in the spirit of normal industrial relations. However, the Company was clearly of the view that such negotiations were not successful as the Unions were unwilling to fully participate in the same process unless total concession of their claims was granted.
The Company also indicated that it would be prepared to look at the possibility of introducing a profit sharing/gain sharing scheme.
The Court cannot accept that pay rates and conditions of employment in one company must be identical with another. However, it is accepted that they should be generally comparable within the industry, in similar companies.
Therefore, the Court recommends that both parties should return to the conciliation process to try and reach agreement on pay and conditions which realistically compare with the industry norms and which will allow for a phasing in of improvements over a period.
The Court is of the view that the sick pay and pension schemes are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments and therefore the Unions are not precluded by PPF from seeking improvements in such schemes.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th February, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.