FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JJ MCCREERY LIMITED - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Incorrectly categorised for pay purposes.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court is a claim by the Union for improved rates of pay for workers employed by the Company. The Union claims that the Workers are craft workers and manufacture furniture. The claim is on the basis that the workers carry out duties and give flexibility far in excess of what would normally be expected of their grade. Following Company/Union negotiations in July, 2006 the Company offered a 6% addition to the basic rate and €5 on to the weekly attendance allowance. The Company also said that in the event of acceptance of the offer they would apply the new rates from September, 2006. The offer was rejected by the workers.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the workers duties consist mainly of making furniture and travelling to construction sites to fit the furniture. Workers are expected to meet their obligations under the Construction Regulations of the Health Safety and Welfare Act, 2005 ie. wearing of appropriate PPE, possess current safe pass card etc.
2. The Union do accept that it would be incorrect to identify the workers as construction workers only and also incorrect to identify the workers as furniture workers only. The Union believes that the workers duties constitute a hybrid of both of these grades and in conjunction with skill levels, the general level of flexibility given by the workers on a day to day basis warrants a pay rate to reflect this.
3 The current Construction Industry minimum hourly rates equals €17.70 per hour, a difference of €7.32 between it and the maximum hourly rates for craft workers with this Company. The Union is seeking the half way point between the two to equal €14.05, a rate the Union believes would reflect the duties of the workers.
4. The Union rejects the Company's argument that the claim would be cost increasing under the National Wage Agreements stating:
- The offer was made by Management of the 6% and the €5 concede the point that this position is of convenience and not of principle by management;
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company manufactures office furniture specialising in off standard products such as boardroom/meeting tables, reception desks and office screens. The Company employes cabinet makers and wood machinists for this purpose and have not deviated in any major form in the last 20 years, except that they ceased producing standard desking ranges due to uncompetitive reasons.
2. The Company states, approximately 90% of all product is sold to their retail company who sell to end user combined with imported products.
3. The Company believes that this is a cost increasing claim and not allowed for under Towards 2016 by trying to re-categorise workers as construction workers when clearly they are employed in a factory situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim that the claimants in this Company are incorrectly categorised for pay purposes and consequently put forward a claim for an increase in pay. The Union submit that the work carried out by the claimants should be remunerated somewhere between a construction worker and a furniture production worker.
The Company deny the categorisation and submit that due to its competitive situation it was not in a position to improve on its offer. At conciliation the Company made an offer to the Union to increase the basic rate by 6% plus award an extra €5.00 per week on the attendance bonus. This offer was rejected by the Union.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court does not accept that there is any basis for comparability with the construction industry. However, the Court recommends that the Company's offer should be improved and recommends an increase of 8½% on basic pay to take effect from 1st July 2007. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company's offer of €5.00 per week on the attendance bonus should be paid in addition to the increase in basic pay.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th_July, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.