FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. PILON Payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the CIF and the Union on behalf of its members employed by various contractors on the Intel site based in Leixlip, Co Kildare. The Union is seeking a finishing bonus payment in recognition of projects completed on site. The Union contends that these PILON payments historically have been paid upon completion of projects and therefore is seeking a payment for its members to be calculated on a pro-rata basis depending on the length of service with the individual contractors. The CIF on behalf of the contractors rejects the Union's claim, arguing that the contractors are not in a position to concede the Union's claim.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 December, 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th December, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Previous payments have been made in recognition of the flexibility and cooperation of the workforce. The Union maintains that this group of workers should receive a payment in the same manner.
2. The precedent for PILON payments has been well-established over a number of years.
3. The Union is of the view that it is inappropriate for the contractors involved to reject this claim given the tangible ongoing benefits associated with the projects completed by these workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The last agreement reached with the Union with regards to PILON payments was in 2005. At that time it was agreed that there would be no further claims of this nature.
2. There have been no further settlements paid to date.
3.There are no provisions for the Contractors to concede the Union's claim which is estimated to be at a cost of approximately €25 million.
RECOMMENDATION:
It seems clear that both sides are maintaining entrenched positions and in these circumstances the Court does not believe that any recommendation that it might make at this time will advance the resolution of the dispute.
The Court is not satisfied that there has been sufficient engagement between the parties in an attempt to resolve this dispute. It recommends that the parties return to conciliation and that they make a sustained and final effort to identify a mutually acceptable basis on which this matter can be progressed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th January 2014______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.