FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : BRETON ROECRETE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Parity with the Construction Industry rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures pre-cast concrete at its premises in Feltrim and Blessington.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of eighteen members employed as General Operatives, Steelfixers, Crane Drivers and Carpenters on the Feltrim site for the application of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) rates of pay agreed from the 1st of October, 2000.
The Union states that the Company pay scales have always been in line with the CIF rates.
The Company states that it is not party to the Registered Employment Agreement. It is a manufacturing plant and not a construction site and, therefore, the CIF rates of pay do not apply.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 18th of January, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of February, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of March, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of the Company's competitors are paying the CIF rates.
2. The Company operates the CIF pension and sick pay scheme and the pay scales have always been in line with CIF rates.
3. The recent increases under the Registered Employment Agreement for the construction industry should be paid to the workers concerned as they fall due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not party to the Registered Employment Agreement. It is involved in manufacturing and not construction. Therefore, the CIF rates do not apply.
2. The CIF pension and sick pay scheme is used as a convenience. There is no precedent for the Company to pay the CIF rates.
3. The industry is very competitive and the Company cannot afford to pay the increases sought by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered all aspects of this case, the Court does not recommend implementation of the new CIF rates of pay in this Company. The Court is satisfied that this Company is not a construction company and that the workers are not classified as construction workers. The Court is not satisfied that there is evidence of a link/parity with CIF rates of pay. While there may have been some similarity in the past, at times the Company was paying less than the CIF rates, and between 1995 and September, 1999 the Company was paying more.
The Court recommends that the offer made to workers in the Blessington plant should also be offered to these workers and should be accepted by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd May, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.