FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADSTONE DUBLIN, ROADSTONE PROVINCES & JOHN A WOOD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim by the Union for the 2% increase under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 2001, the Union submitted a claim for the increase due under the PPF revision on behalf of approximately 1400 workers employed by the Roadstone / John A Wood companies. The Companies rejected the claim. Arising out of negotiations under the Partnership 2000 (P 2000) the parties reached agreement which provided for an extra 12% on basic rates over and above the payments due under P2000. Cumulative increases during the lifetime of the PPF amount to 28.2 %. However, the Union maintains that is not precluded from seeking the additional increase under the PPF revision. Local discussions were not successful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A Conciliation Conference was held on the 27th April, 2001. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 5th July, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court in the 5th July, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 1st August, 2001. Subsequent to the hearing both parties submitted further information which was considered by the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The rates of pay in the Companies were seriously out of line with a whole range of companies and the parties eventually agreed, after 18 months of negotiations under P2000, to address basic pay by a special adjustment of 12% in three phases. That agreement was concluded prior to the PPF. Management must respect the provisions of the amendment to the PPF and make the payments to workers.
2. Some competitor companies have paid the increases. The workers have given full cooperation with change and increased productivity. The increases claimed , in terms of the amendment to the PPF, have no implications for the employment. The Companies are very successful and cannot reject the claim under any of the clauses associated with the amendment to the PPF (i.e competitiveness, employment at risk and inability to recover costs).
3. The agreement concluded under P2000 will be negated by 2% if Management is successful in its attempt at non-implementation of the amendment to the PPF.
4. While the Union was concluding its agreement with the Group under P2000, the Construction Industry was also finalising a much more significant agreement on basic pay. The rates in the wider construction industry are well ahead of those in the Roadstone companies.
5. The Court in LCR 16824 recommended that workers in the Construction Industry should benefit from the increases under the amendment to the PPF.
COMPANIES' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Companies operate in a very competitive environment. Attempting to recover costs in that environment is extremely difficult. The PPF revision is very clear that the payments due must have particular regard for circumstances where competitiveness and employment are at risk, particularly where wage costs, within the terms of the PPF, have increased significantly over and above the terms of the Agreement.
2. Cumulative wage costs over the duration of the PPF are 28.2 %. The Companies have paid an additional increase of 1.7%through the elimination of the lower 2 points of the pay scales. Bonus payments have increased 6.2 % for 2001. Pay for annual leave improvements has been made at a cost of 1.5 %. Pension improvements made are outside the norm in the industry, with a cost implication for future funding.
3. All these increases in pay have been made in a competitive environment where it is not possible to achieve any real increases in the market place.
4. There is no pay relationship between the Roadstone companies and the Construction Industry.
4. The claim for the increases under the PPF amendment is inappropriate when account is taken of the improvements in pay and conditions of employment, the worsening commercial climate and the consequential risk to competitiveness and employment. The terms and conditions that are in place in the Roadstone companies far surpass those that exist in the vast majority of competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court makes its recommendation on the claim for the payment of the 2% under the terms of the amended PPF, in those companies where pay costs have increased significantly over and above the terms of the PPF, on the basis that the payment of the 2% would put the competitiveness and employment at risk.
While the company indicated to the Court that its pay costs have increased significantly over and above the terms of the PPF, the claim as presented was also one of inability to pay the 2%.
The Court has given consideration to the arguments made by both sides. The Court is of the view that there is no basis to indicate that the trading position of the company is such as to justify the non-payment of the 2%. Therefore, the Court recommends that the 2% should be paid as per the amended PPF agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October,2001______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.