FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Retrospective application of pay rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates as a pipe-laying contractor to Bord Gais and was required to restructure its Pay and Terms & Conditions urgently in order to comply with the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) and Revenue regulations. The result of these changes have caused a reduction in take-home pay and the erosion of pay differentials for many of its approximately 200 employees. A number of issues therefore arose between the Union and Management and all but two of these have been settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
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 24th July, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th September, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Only one of the two remaining issues unresolved is before the Court, it concerns the two 2.5% pay increases due under "Towards 2016" payable for the period June 07 to December 07 and January 08 to June 08 . A lump sum equal to the initial 2.5% was paid but there was no change in the basic hourly rate.
2. General Operative Members are entitled to have their back-money paid in full and back-dated to 17th November, 2006, otherwise their hourly basic rate would fall below the minimum pay rate allowable under the REA for the sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During negotiations over the changes in Pay and Terms & Conditions the Union raised the issue of the final two phases of 'Towards 2016'. The first phase was paid in a gesture of good faith in order to progress the process, but there was no agreement that phase two would be paid. It should be noted that the Company has always paid pay increases under the National Wage Agreement.
2. During the period June 07 through to June 08 the Company was already paying its Employees in excess of the REA rate when the complete pay package was taken into account.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns an outstanding issue not resolved following negotiations on a new pay structure for the Company to comply with the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement and Revenue guidelines.
The issue concerns the application of retrospection of the last two phases of “Towards 2016” –*2.5% plus 2.5% on pre-negotiated rates, from 1st January 2008 to 7th July 2008.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court recommends that the retrospection should be paid in full to each of the workers. It should be paid in two equal phases, half on 1st December 2008 and half on 31st January 2009, and should be paid in the manner outlined in the Company’s proposals dated 26th June 2008.
The Court recommends that this payment should be accepted in full and final settlement of all matters relating to the new pay structure going forward.
The Court so recommends.
*2.5% retrospection was paid from 1st July 2007 up to 31st December 2007
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th. October, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.