FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FENELON ENGINEERING - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY AMICUS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Bonus Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. Fenelon Engineering employs approximately 80 workers. The majority of whom are represented by the Union. During a period of two years, discussions took place between the Union and the Company and the Union claims an agreement was reached. The Union is seeking implementation of this agreement with full retrospection updated in line with national wage agreements. This would bring the current top rate to €15.98 and the intermediate rate to €14.87.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th August, 2004. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 28th January, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 In 2002 the Union began discussions with the Company regarding the rate of pay. These discussions were to agree on a mechanism of increasing the rate to the construction craft rate, currently €16.44 per hour.
2. Following 2 years of discussions the company sought a suspension of discussions to facilitate a move to new premises and the sale of the existing factory. This took approximately 1 year.
3. Following the move, the Union re-engaged in negotiations and eventually an agreement was reached on a three-tier scheme. This scheme was to cover all craftsmen and was to be by assessment.
4. On 29th May, 2003 the Company published a proposal that did not comply with the conditions agreed with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The company would not be able to financially sustain any increase in wages at the present time. The market is becoming increasingly competitive and profit margins are reducing.
2. The Company has to compete with an influx of cheaper labour, costs of insurance, health and safety, customers demanding that the Company reduce rates.
3. The Company has honoured all National Wage Agreements to date.
4. The Company has received no financial assistance from any Government Agencies and all costs have to be absorbed by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the parties reached agreement in principle on a new grading structure in May 2003. However a final agreement was not concluded because the parties had not agreed a number of essential details on how the grading structure would be applied in practice.
In the Court's view, the dispute should now be resolved by the employer reinstating the original proposal as contained in its letter of 29th May, 2003, with necessary adjustments to reflect subsequent national pay agreements. The parties should then seek to reach agreement on how the scheme should apply in practice. When agreement is reached on this detail, the increases should apply from a current date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th July, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.