FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION - AND - ICTU CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COMMITTEE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Application of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) revised terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Construction Industry Committee (CIC) represents 60,000 building workers who are members of 8 Unions in the Construction Industry.
The Unions are claiming a 2% increase in basic pay for building workers from 1st of April, 2001, in line with the provisions of the revised terms of the PPF. Pay and conditions are determined on a sectoral basis within the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) and through direct negotiations between the Construction Industry Federation Committee (CIC) and the Construction Industry Federation with agreement being registered with the Labour Court under Section 27 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The Federation is claiming that the additional 2% is not justified. The "Collateral Agreement" of 2nd of February, 2000, states that any increases arising from the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) review be in full and final settlement of all claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment for the duration of this agreement. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th of April, 2001, as no agreement was reached the claim was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of April, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 11th of May, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are claiming a 2% increase in basic pay for building workers in line with the provisions of the revised terms of the PPF.
2. The Unions' state that when the "Collateral Agreement" was concluded in November, 1999, it led to significant improvements in basic pay above the terms of the PPF. However, average pay increases during the last year for building workers were far below the increases agreed.
3. The agreement on the additional 2% is clear that the pay adjustment should be applied in the same way as the other pay terms in the PPF.
FEDERATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PPF amendment does not include industries like construction where wage costs have increased and competitiveness and employment are at risk.
2. The CIC/CIF negotiations which took place in the latter part of the year took account of the inflation which the PPF amendment was designed to do.
3. The "Collateral Agreement" precludes claims for further increases.
4. The analogue agreement that is under negotiation will adjust the rates of pay at a time more suitable to the employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the collateral agreement, concluded between the parties in February 2000, provides for the full implementation of the PPF. In that context clause 3 of the collateral agreement should be understood as precluding any cost increasing claims beyond those provided by the combined effect of PPF and the collateral agreement itself.
The increases sought by the CIC in the present claim are provided for by PPF and are not precluded by the collateral agreement.
The Court does not accept that the other arguments put forward by the Federation disclose grounds on which the Court should recommend against the Unions' claim.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the increases claimed be paid from the due dates.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th May, 2001______________________
MO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.