One of the State's largest cement firms has been told by the Labour Court to place workers on a 39- hour week and implement other benefits.
The court said that Quinn Cement had failed to honour commitments given earlier this year on the introduction of a sick-pay scheme and revised disciplinary procedures.
The cement company, based in Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, is part of the Quinn Group, owned by businessman Seán Quinn.
Siptu told the Labour Court earlier this year that it had taken the "vast majority" of the non-clerical staff at the Ballyconnell plant into its membership.
As the company had declined to engage in collective bargaining, the union asked the court to recommend a range of improvements in pay and conditions.
The court refused on that occasion to do so. In a recommendation issued in March, it said it was not satisfied that pay and conditions at the company were out of line with "acceptable standards".
In a determination just published, however, the court said its earlier recommendation had taken into account a number of assurances given by Quinn Cement.
The company had promised to move to a 39-hour week, to review its grievance and disciplinary procedures, to use the machinery of the State in appropriate industrial relations cases and to introduce a sick-pay scheme.
It was the opinion of the court that the company had not honoured its commitments on the 39-hour week or the sick-pay scheme.
The company had also failed to make use of the machinery of the State in quoted cases, while its revised grievance and disciplinary procedures did not meet the requirements of the established code of practice in this area.
As a result, the court said it was now issuing a determination that the company move to a 39-hour week, without loss of weekly pay, from July 1st.
It also told the company to again review its grievance and disciplinary procedures and to use the machinery of the State in cases that went unresolved.
The court said it noted the company's intention to introduce a sick-pay scheme with effect from July 2005.
The court described the scheme as "unusual", however, in that it was contributory and had a two-week waiting time before payment was made. It told the company to introduce instead a non-contributory scheme that had a three-day waiting period, as was the norm.
If the company failed to implement the determination, the union could seek to have it enforced by the Circuit Court.
