THE SECOND-LARGEST trade union in the construction sector has rejected a Labour Court recommendation of a 7.5 per cent reduction in pay rates for staff in the industry.
The executive of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union voted unanimously against the proposal at a meeting at the weekend.
The union’s general secretary, Eamon Devoy, said its members would not thank it for accepting the pay-cut proposal.
“We do not believe that it [the pay cut] would contribute anything to economy recovery – quite the reverse. It would continue to depress domestic demand, which is now exerting a serious negative impact on the demand side.”
The Labour Court recommendation, issued in July, said the proposed cut should be regarded as a “temporary measure” or derogation from rates set out in the registered employment agreement, which sets out minimum terms and conditions for the 100,000 or more workers in the sector.
It said the continued application of the pay-cut should be reviewed in January 2012, and in each subsequent year.
The Construction Industry Federation, which represents employers in the sector, originally sought a cut of 20 per cent in workers’ pay.
It had argued that the industry was going through probably the most severe and rapid downturn it had ever experienced, and that employers could no longer afford to pay existing wage rates.
Other trade unions in the sector – including Siptu, which represents the largest number of construction staff – are consulting their members on the Labour Court recommendation.
However, Mr Devoy said last night his union would not accept a cut in pay rates, as recommended by the Labour Court, in any circumstances.
A spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation said it would wait until all unions had finalised consultation with their members prior to commenting.
Earlier this month the federation said its executive body, which is made up of nominees of each of its branches and associations, had backed the Labour Court recommendation for a 7.5 per cent reduction in pay rates even though it had sought a larger cut.
Mr Devoy said competitive issues did not arise to any great extent as all construction companies operating in the State had to comply with the registered employment agreement.
“The employers certainly have a case when they argue that there is widespread non-compliance with the agreement, but the answer to this is to ensure there is adequate enforcement,” he said.
“One particular problem appears to be that some large contractors on public procurement projects sign up to all the relevant conditions but effectively renege on those commitments by farming out the work to sub-contractors.
“These subcontractors, many of them based in the North, often do not comply with the registered employment agreement, or much else for that matter when it comes to important issues such as health and safety.”
Mr Devoy said the registered employment agreement had to be enforced, otherwise it would go by default “like so many other laws in a state where the Government seems to have lost the will to govern”.
He added: “Tackling non-compliance by trying to drive down wages is counterproductive in every sense. The Government is equally answerable for the high level of non-compliance by employees across industry because of their failure to implement the long-awaited Employment Rights Compliance Bill agreed between the social partners and Government over two years ago.”