FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COLLAND TRADING CO - AND - A.G.E.M.O. TRADE GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. (1) Increase in basic pay; (2) Overtime rates; (3) Expenses; (4) Pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the quarrying and processing of stone and the distribution of the finished product from its base in Kilcullen, Co Kildare. The Company's main customer for these products is Readymix. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of two of its members for (1) an increase in basic pay; (2) overtimes rates:(3) expenses: (4) pension scheme.
Management rejected the Union's claim.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) Of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th December, 2003.
Management indicated by letter that it would not be attending the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Pay:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an increase in the driver ratewhich it claims has fallen behind that of its comparators in the industry.
2. The Union is also seeking an increase in the basic hourly rate of pay for Shovel Operator which will bring it into line with that in the construction industry.
Overtime:
1. The Union argues that overtime rates should be paid in line with agreements within the industry.
Expenses
1.The workers concerned are currently not in receipt of any expenses despite the fact that no canteen facilities are available to them.
2. The Union is seeking a daily subsistence rate of €9.50 which the Union considers reasonable.
3. The Union is also seeking payment of travel allowance for a worker who has been relocated to a quarry some twenty miles away from his original base.
4. Management has agreed to give the worker €35.00 worth of diesel per week on an interim basis. However, this allowance could be stopped at any time. The Union is requesting that the Court recommend payment of a mileage allowance of 60 cent per mile for this worker.
Pension:
1.The Union is seeking the introduction of a pension scheme that both the employer and the workers can contribute to.
2. The workers are willing to contribute up to 6% of their earnings into a scheme. This should be matched by a similar amount from the company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considers it regrettable that the employer declined to attend the hearing or to make any substantive input into the Court's investigation of this dispute.
On the uncontradicted evidence of the Union the Court is satisfied that the rates of pay and other conditions of employment of those associated with this claim are out of line with those applicable in other similar employments. The Court is further satisfied that, historically, the rates of pay within the Company were determined by reference to the construction industry rates but that recent improvements in those rates and conditions (including National Partnership Agreement increases) have not been applied by the Company.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis:
Pay
- The Driver rate should be €12.70 per hour.
- The Shovel Operator rate should be brought into line with that in the construction industry and fixed at €14.88 per hour, rising to €15.18 per hour with effect from 1st January 2004.
- In both cases further adjustments should be in line with the Sustaining Progress agreement.
Overtime
Overtime rates should be as follows:
- Time and one half after normal finishing time (Monday to Friday)
- Time and one half for hours worked between 8am and midday on Saturday.
- Double time before 8am weekdays, after midday Saturdays and for all time worked on Sunday.
Expenses
The Court understands that the daily meal allowances formally paid to workers in the construction industry has now been subsumed into hourly rates. On the basis that the hourly rates recommended are in line with those in the construction industry, a similar arrangement should apply.
However the Company should provide adequate facilities for the taking of hot meals during the day.
With regard to the worker who was relocated, the Court recommends that the current arrangement whereby diesel is provided by the Company should be put on a formal footing.
Pension
The Court recommends that the Company should seek facilities to enter the workers in the Construction Operatives Pension scheme or an equivalent scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th December, 2003______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.