LCR22453

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

BCD MASCO GROUP

- AND -

30 CRAFT WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY UNITE TRADE UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Application of the mechanical contracting pay rates

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13 May 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual courtroom on 17 August 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union argues that the workers should receive the prevailing rates in the sector deriving from the SEO and the MEBSCA agreement.

2. The Union says that in terms of travel a weekly fixed amount should apply and that this was agreed with the Company is 2017.

3. BCD standard weekly rates should be the same overall figure as the MEBSCA hourly rates multiplied x 44 hours. This should be addressed over time as set out to the Court in the Union submission.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company put forward a 5 year deal that was accepted by Connect Union members but not by Unite the Union members.

2. The Company says that if any superior deal is recommended for another employee cohort, it will have a significant knock on effect for this 5 year deal.

3. The Company has offered this 5 year deal to Unite Trade Union members together with a €10 uplift in the weekly lodge allowance to €180. This will ensure uniformity of rates, maintain BCD's competitiveness, maintain harmonious relations within the employee groupings on site and ensure ongoing employment for all.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The claim before the Court essentially involves the Trade Union seeking to secure broad alignment for its members with the terms and conditions contained in the Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contractors Association (MEBSCA) agreement currently in place.

That agreement is asserted by the Trade Union to comprise a combination of the arrangements set out in a 2010 MEBSCA agreement facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission, a MEBSCA agreement which was originally registered when registration was statutorily possible and the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) currently in place for the Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector (S.I. No. 59 of 2018).

There is no contention before the Court that the employer in this trade dispute is an employer comprehended by either of these agreements or by the SEO or that the rates of pay and arrangements set out in these instruments have automatic application to the workers involved in this trade dispute.

The Court notes that the employer has reached a collective agreement with the trade Union representing the significant majority of the organised workforce on a five year pay agreement to take effect from 1^st September 2020. The Court also notes that the previous 2017 collective agreement covering the members of UNITE the Union and the members of the majority Trade Union contained terms having common application across the unionised workforce.

Notwithstanding that both parties before the Court have asserted that the collective relationships on site are productive and constructive, the Court recognises that challenges in terms of securing sustainable collective agreements can arise where the bargaining arrangements do not include parallel or single table bargaining in the employment on similar or identical issues.

The Court notes the offer of a five year pay agreement made by the employer to the Trade Union on 19^th January 2021. The Court notes also that the employer offered a €10 increase in “lodge” and a €100 voucher.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the employer’s offer be amended so as to make provision for a €15.00 increase in the “lodge” and that the amended offer should be accepted.

The Court also recommends that the parties in this employment reflect for the future as to whether current arrangements for ‘pay round’ bargaining are supportive of effective and inclusive engagement.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.