INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
RYAN BROS (ENNIS) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Parity with Roadstone workers.
2. The Company was a privately owned business until November, 1996 when it was acquired by Roadstone Provinces Ltd. The Company operates as a stand-alone operation and is responsible for its own performance.
The Union's claim is for harmonisation of pay and conditions of employment between the former employees of Ryan Bros Limited and Roadstone employees.
The claim was rejected on the basis of the costs involved.
As there was no agreement between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 28th March, 2002, and on the 17th September, 2002 but agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd October, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th May, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Roadstone is a highly profitable, high profile company, which can well afford this claim.
2. This claim should be retrospective to 1997, when Roadstone began to reap the benefits of ownership of this business.
3. This Company has high value assets and is highly profitable and should share those profits equitably with its workers.
4. 1. The claim for parity ignores the competitive reality of the business environment in which Roadstone operates.
2. Companies operate independently of each other within the CRH Group and are responsible for their own financial performance.
3. Ryan Bros already operate the C.I.F. sick pay and pension schemes which is reflective of industry norms. To attempt to cherry-pick individual in-house pension schemes, which would have high cost implications in relation to funding both within Ryan Bros and other Companies, and to attempt to piggy-back on other terms and conditions of employment without taking into account the Company's competitive position is wholly unacceptable.
4. The Union's claim is without basis and we would ask the Court to reject the Union's claim for parity.
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Court is of the view that the best way forward in this dispute is for the parties to resume meaningful discussions as per the Company's letter of 17th April, 2002 to the senior industrial relations officers of the LRC. The Court recommends accordingly.
If the discussions are not successfully completed by 30th September, 2003 the parties may return to the Court for a definitive recommendation on any outstanding issues.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th July, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.