FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union represents fifteen craftspeople. The dispute concerns the Union's claim that there are up to eight different pay rates for those fifteen workers. The Union is seeking to have a unified rate of pay, ranging from €17.26 to €18.36 per hour approximately. The Company rejects the claim, maintaining that the rate being sought is actually the Electrical Contracting Industry Employment Agreement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th of January, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of April, 2004, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has found it extremely difficult and frustrating to deal with the Company. It has made numerous attempts to do so since the claim was first made in June, 2003.
2. There are no agreed rates of pay for the workers concerned as the Company has refused to negotiate with the Union.
3. The present structure, with a number of different rates of pay, is divisive and unacceptable to the workers. The rates being paid - from €13.43 to €16.61 per hour - are very low compared to local companies of similar size.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has experienced serious financial difficulties in recent times. (The Company supplied details of its position to the Court). Notwithstanding this, the rates of pay in the Company remain competitive when compared to a recent survey of companies in the region.
2. Concession of the claim would lead to a knock-on claim from SIPTU which represents 180 workers in the Company.
3.The rate of pay being sought is that agreed for electrical contractors as per the Electrical Contracting Industry Employment Agreement. Electrical contracting companies operate on an entirely different basis to an industry based company such as Atlas Aluminium, making the claim inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not satisfied that there has been any substantive discussions between the parties in this claim.
The Court, therefore, recommends that direct discussions take place, with the assistance of an Industrial Relations Officer, if necessary. These discussions to be completed within 6 weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.