INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Pay scales, pension and sick pay schemes.
2. The Company was established in Kilbeggan, Co. Westmeath, in the early 1970's and has a workforce of 108. SIPTU represent 62 employees. The Company has an annual turnover of €20,500,000, and manufacture machinery that is used in the recycling, aggregates and associated industry sectors.
In September, 1999, 74 employees joined the Union. In October, 2000, a Company Union agreement was concluded and a deal was reached on working hours and a percentage increase.
In 2001, discussions took place on wage grades but agreement was not reached. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and as agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th of November, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of September, 2002 in Athlone, Co. Westmeath
3. 1. The system presently operated by the Company is unfair as it does not take into consideration service or skill.
2. The gain sharing scheme, which was introduced by the Company as part of its original agreement has disappeared - only one payment has been made.
3. The Company's proposals are unfair as they propose to freeze wages of many of the workers until the wage rates they propose to introduce catch up on the workers concerned through national wage increases.
4. The rates of pay proposed by the Company are below the national average pay.
5. The Union's proposals put forward are reasonable and realistic as they are based on rates already paid by the Company and allow for incremental credit which will reward loyalty and recognise skill development.
Sick Pay and Pension Schemes
1. In most good employments Sick Pay and Pension schemes exist. They should also exist in the Company as they are deferred pay for utilisation by workers when they are :
(a) out ill and require an income
(b) retire with a pension thereby maintaining a reasonable income.
2. The introduction of such schemes have the support of the main social partners.
Company Pension and Company Sick Pay Scheme
4. 1. The Company has a number of facilities in Ireland. Apart from Terex Aerials, none of the other operations in Ireland have a Pension or Sick Pay Scheme for hourly paid employees.
2. The Company is in the process of closing due to the fact that its cost base is too high and it is not competitive.
3. The Clones branch has an outstanding liability of €1,500,000 in relation to the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company. CPV is currently facing extreme difficult trading circumstances.
4. The Union is asking that the Company put additional cost in the form of a Pension and Sick Pay Scheme into the facility in Kilbeggan. This will endanger jobs and the future viability of the plant.
1. The Company's proposal in regard to the implementation of a Grading Scheme is fair and equitable. Since it concluded the agreement with SIPTU in October, 2000, hourly paid employees have received percentage increases of at least that of the PPF.
2. In April ,2002,the Company implemented its grading proposal, no one on site is paid below the rate applicable to each job. In fact many workers are paid above the applicable job rate.
3. The Company feels that any grading scheme must be based upon job classification rather than length of service.
4. This claim will add significantly to the labour cost of the Kilbeggan facility. The Union's proposal is a cost increasing claim and as such is barred under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Union informed the Court the issue of a disciplinary warning had been resolved. It further informed the Court that the issue relating to pay was its priority and that subject to a satisfactory resolution of this issue its claim for the introduction of a pension and sick pay scheme could be deferred.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the rates originally proposed by the Company in March, 2001, including a proposed rate on craft pay, should be reinstated (and updated by the application of relevant phases of PPF) and accepted subject to the following modifications:
- Those currently on rates higher than the new basic should retain the higher rate on a personal to holder basis and all national or similar increases should be applied fully to the personal rate.
- Consideration of the Union's claim for the introduction of a pension and sick pay scheme should be deferred.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd October, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.