FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Rates of pay, shift allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced operations in Scariff, Co. Clare in 1984. Its core activity is the manufacture of chipboard. It currently employs one hundred and fifty workers.
During the normal shutdown periods and for special project work, there is a need for the Company to take on contract workers. The Union maintains that these contract workers receive a higher rate of pay than its members.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for an increase in their rate of pay and an increase in the shift allowance for 2-cycle shift workers from 16% to 20%.
The Company states it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of April, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Contract workers taken on by the Company who are working beside and performing the same duties as the craft workers concerned are receiving over €3 per hour more.
2. The issue of pay for the workers concerned must be addressed on an incremental basis.
3. In the region generally, the shift allowance paid to 2-cycle shift workers is 20%. The shift allowance for the workers concerned should be increased from 16% to 20%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When taking on contract workers, the Company normally negotiates with the company supplying the contract workers on the basis of either a total job cost or a rate per hour depending on the work to be done. The rate of pay applicable to the contract workers is a matter between these workers and their employer.
2. The Company has no direct comparator in relation to the shift allowance. There are companies in the region paying 20% but they can afford to do so.
3. The Company made an offer in relation to the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in line with an agreement reached with another Union. The offer was rejected by the workers concerned in this dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all the arguments made by both sides in this dispute, the Court considered that this claim is debarred under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, as it is a cost-increasing claim.
The Court notes that the Company's offer made at conciliation on the 20th of September, 2001, in respect of the application of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, is still open to Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union members.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd May, 2002______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.