FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION - AND - CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY ICTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Outstanding pay claim as Per Sectoral Employment Order / Travel Time.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 22 December 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 February 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The CIC is seeking that the Court recommend the payment of a 5% pay increase in pay to be paid in 2018.
2. The CIC is seeking that the Court recommend the travel allowance of one hours pay per day to be paid to each worker in the sector.
3. The CIC is seeking that the Court recommend the payment of lump sum so to effectively back date the rates of pay set out in the SEO for the sector introduced in October 2017.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Contractors simply cannot afford any further increase in labour costs at this time. Construction workers received significant increases in pay a mere four months ago as a result of the introduction of an SEO for the sector.
2. The rates of pay for crafspeople and GO's working in the construction sector are considerably higher than their counterparts working in the public sector.
3. For the majority of workers, travel allowances have not been paid in the construction industry for several years. To re-introduce an allowance now, at a time when there have been significant increases in labour costs is not sustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matter before the Court concerns
•A pay claim•A claim for one hour’s travel time per day to every worker in the sector.
•A claim arising from the application date of the recently established Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) for the Industry.
The Court recommends as follows:
Pay claim
The Court notes that the current pay rates in the industry were established by an SEO made by the Minister in October 2017. The Court notes that this SEO was recommended by the Court following a joint application by the parties. The Court, in making that recommendation, considered, as it is required by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 to do, all the factors set out in that Act including the potential impact of the order on competitiveness in the sector and the general level of remuneration in other economic sectors in which workers of the same class, type or group are employed.
Having so recently made a recommendation on pay in the sector the Court is unable, less than five months after the passing into law of the SEO, to re-visit that matter.
The Court cannot recommend concession of this aspect of the claim.
Travel time
The Court notes that the claim on travel time is for an hour’s travel time for every worker in the industry. The employer side submits that travel time is no longer generally a feature in the industry and even when it was it did not apply universally.
The Court is unable to identify the degree to which travel time is currently paid in the industry albeit the employer side submitted that it is paid in only a small number of instances. The Court is further unable to establish the cost of this claim.
The Court recommends that this matter should continue to be the subject of engagement between the parties in order that they might develop a shared understanding of its full implications. The Court notes that the primary national forum for consideration of such matters is the parties’ National Joint Industrial Council and recommends that it should be placed on the agenda at the Council.
Matters arising from the application of recently established SEO for the sector
The Court carried out is statutory function in addressing the parties’ joint application under the 2015 for an SEO for the sector. Having done so the Court is unable to revisit matters addressed by the Court therein.
The Trade union side has submitted that the structure of the process set out in the 2015 Act for the review of an SEO is such that pay determination based on the review of an SEO cannot produce a pay agreement on a twelve-monthly basis. The Trade Union side submitted that where an SEO is made it cannot, under the Act, be reviewed for at least 12 months and the process of review is such that any adjustment to an SEO following a review would not take place for considerably more than twelve months after making of an SEO. The Trade union submitted that while the SEO process is supported by both parties to the industry, its framework creates a challenge for workers in the industry given the timeframes involved in review.
The Court notes that the parties are committed to orderly pay determination in the industry in operation of the SEO procedure set out in the 2015 Act. The Court notes also that this industry has, for many decades, addressed pay as a national issue.
The Court notes the issue raised by the Trade Unions and recommends that, in the interest of good industrial relations, the employer side should agree to the making of a ‘once off’ voucher payment of €300 to each worker covered by the current SEO. That voucher payment should be made on the twelve-month anniversary date of the coming into law of the current SEO.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
5 March 2018______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.