FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GEORGIA PACIFIC - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the appropriate rate of pay and related redundancy terms applicable to the workers. The Union's position is that the Craftsmen in question (Fitters) should have been paid the equivalent rate of Electricians employed by the Company and that the correct rate of pay be applied reflected in the redundancies.
Management's position is that the workers worked as self employed contractors for many years and were subsequently directly employed by the Company at considerable expense. Management further contend that it is not appropriate to pay the Electricians rate of pay to Fitters as they are not engaged in like work.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 28th January 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th April 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It is unacceptable that the workers in this case are paid a lower rate of pay than other Craftworkers employed by the Company. Both Craft groups are engaged in like work and should be paid the same rate.
2 Management contend that being a direct employee is more beneficial to the workers than being engaged as contractors. This is not relevant in the current situation as the workers are being let go.
3 As the workers are being made redundant the payment of the appropriate rate of pay is essential in the accrual of redundancy entitlements. Failure to award the correct rate of pay to the workers is essentially discrimminating between the Craftworkers on site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The workers became direct employees of the Company with retrospecive payment of Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) contributions. This retrospective change in employment status will greatly enhance the redundancy settlement on offer.
2 It has been difficult in the past to recruit certain Crafts which has resulted in higher rates of pay in certain circumstances. It is not, therefore,appropriate to pay the Electricians rate to the fitters as they are not engaged in like work and the market rate for both jobs is somewhat different.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the workers associated with this claim are being paid a salary equivalent to that which they had accepted over many years while purporting to work as independent contractors. In these circumstances the Court does not see merit in their claim for an enhanced salary at this stage.
It is noted that the Claimants are being offered the same redundancy terms as all other employees affected by the current redundancies. It is further noted that the terms are being applied to their full service, including the time spent working on a contract basis.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.