FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : E. BUTTIMER & CO LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment of the MECA rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company had previously been a member of the Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Contractors Association (MECA) When agreement was reached on rates of pay for 2003 the Company was no longer a member of MECA. At present the Company is paying the MECA rates on Prime sites where the rate is recoverable. On other sites a rate of pay which is above the registered agreement rate is being paid.
It was later agreed to link the rates of pay of the Electrical Contractors Association and the MECA. In making this decision it was also decided to eliminate the first hour of travel and incorporate it into the hourly rate.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of their members, for all employees to receive the rates of pay agreed with M.E.C.A.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 30th September, 2003. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th January, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has given commitments to pay the MECA rate on it's Prime sites.
2. In late 2003, the Company raised the basic rate for 7-9 Supervisors/Foremen to the MECA rate.
3. The craft workers employed by the Company, on all sites, should also be in receipt of the MECA rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was not a member of MECA when agreement was reached on the rates of pay in 2003.
2. The Company applies the MECA rate on Prime sites where the rate is recoverable and the Company competes only with other companies who pay the MECA rate.
3. The Company pays a rate in excess of the relevant Registered Employment Agreement
on all other sites.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company has been a party to the collective agreement between the M.E.C.A. group of companies and the relevant trade unions since the inception of that group. From an industrial relations prospective it is not reasonable for the Company to unilaterally withdraw from that collective agreement and it appears that no mechanism is provided by the agreement itself by which they could do so. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company continue to honour the agreement.
Serious issues have been raised in the course of the hearing concerning the competitiveness of companies who subscribe to the M.E.C.A. agreement relative to those who do not. In the Court's view these issues have the potential to undermine the viability of the agreement unless they are addressed as a matter of urgency.
The Court further recommends that the parties meet to address these issues as soon as practical.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th March, 2003______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.