FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay claim and a Collective Agreement for crane operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a pay claim and a collective agreement for crane operatives.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13 October 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6 November 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Tower cranes have evolved hugely since first featuring in the 1970’s. The trend is set to continue with Government plans to reduce height restrictions.
2. Crane operators like no other construction grade face hidden costs due to the high risk attached to their occupation. These changes have resulted in more responsibility and pressure on crane operators.
3. While crane drivers have always received recognition for their unique and individual role in the sector, they believe that this recognition should be expressed via a comprehensive collective agreement.
4. The Union seeks an agreement that provides the Workers with appropriate plus payments, improved training and improved health and safety standards
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) was signed into law on the 19 October 2017 and provides for increases of 10% on the REA rates of pay.
2. The SEO is universally applicable and provides a level playing field with regard to labour costs.
3. An agreement was reached with SIPTU with regard to crane drivers on the basis of two hours greasing allowance per day. The same deal was offered to UNITE.
4. Any further concessions to UNITE would severely impact on the established relativities in the industry and would only serve to open up the flood gate to further unsustainable claims from the craft unions and SIPTU.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the parties’ written and verbal submissions. In addition the Court has considered the oral contribution of three observer parties at its hearing.
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for a pay adjustment over the recently enacted SEO rate increase for the industry, a different treatment of the greasing allowance to that which was collectively agreed earlier this year by a Trade union representing Crane Drivers and the CIF, the application of one hour’s travel time per day, an adjustment to the pension arrangements set out in the recently enacted Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) for the industry and contained in the terms of the Construction Workers Pension Scheme (CWPS), introduction of a universal schedule of working hours, adjustments to overtime pay arrangements and engagement in relation to Training, Health and Safety and Inclement Weather.
The Trade Union seeks a collective agreement with the CIF incorporating arrangements as claimed for Crane Drivers.
The Court understands from the parties that approximately 80,000 persons are employed in the Construction Industry nationally in roles and grades encompassed by the industry SEO. The Court also understands that there are currently fewer than 200 persons employed as Crane Drivers in the industry. The parties have, in the Construction Industry National Joint Industrial Council (CINJIC), a long established mechanism for bargaining and engagement on matters associated with terms and conditions of employment in the industry. That mechanism has, for many decades, been the forum which has facilitated the parties in concluding industry wide agreements on matters of pay and conditions.
The Court understands that the parties, through an agreement concluded at the CINJIC almost 20 years ago, have in place an agreed grading structure encapsulating the various categories of worker engaged in the industry. The Court further understands that this grading structure is underpinned by an established set of pay relativities which, on an industry wide basis, establish the framework of pay. The Claim currently before the Court is in respect of a group of workers who are identified, as a result of the agreed grading structure and agreed associated pay relativities, as having a pay rate which is 97% of the Craft Rate.
The Court is conscious that this industry has for a considerable period been viewed by Trade Unions representing workers and the CIF representing employers as being of such a nature as to require a mechanism which facilitates the conclusion of industry wide agreements which could be assured to have effect across the industry. The engagement mechanism employed and supported by both sides has been the CINJIC.
The Court understands that the parties before the Court, who are members of the CINJIC, are currently engaged in that forum on an agenda which includes a review of the current agreed grading structure. Indeed the Court understands from the contributions at the hearing that one of the claims before the Court -travelling time- is also a claim being pursued by the Union side, including UNITE, at the CINJIC.
The Court must have regard to the fact that the parties representing workers and employers in the industry have for many years agreed that the industry should have a grading structure and that there should be a defined industry wide pay relationship between the various grades within the structure. The Court has concluded that, on foot of a claim from one particular group of workers making up a small part numerically of one grade, it cannot support a proposition which would, in the Court’s view, have the potential if conceded, to disturb the agreed grade framework and associated pay relativities which encompass all workers in the industry.
The Court notes the assertion by the Trade Union that many of its members are currently in receipt of locally agreed rates of pay which exceed the rates provided for in the SEO for the industry or being sought in the current claim. It is not a matter for the Court to examine that proposition.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends as follows:
•That the parties should, as part of the review of grading at the CINJIC, examine the appropriateness of that grading structure as it applies to Crane Drivers.•That the parties should address any issues as regards national arrangements for hours of work or overtime pay at the CINJIC.
•That the parties should deal with the Union’s national claim as regards Travelling time as part of the Trade Union side agenda at the CINJIC on the issue of Travelling time.
•That the agreement to afford two hours’ greasing allowance per day to Crane Drivers should be applied to those crane drivers represented before the Court
•That any adjustment to the CWPS should be dealt by the parties in the manner normally utilised by the parties for engagement as regards this industry wide scheme.
•That the parties should engage in the normal manner in relation to any issue arising within the industry or for this group specifically as regards Training, Inclement Weather or Health and Safety.
•That no penalty should apply either formally or informally within the industry to a worker who has engaged in a lawful trade dispute. The parties should meet directly to discuss any concern of the Trade Union as regards potential informal consequences being experienced by individual workers as a result of the conduct of the recent Trade dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
13th November, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.