Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89747 Case Number: DEC902 Section / Act: S57(1) Parties: T. S. HUGHES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Application by the worker for an interpretation under Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as to whether or not he is covered by the Employment Regulation Order (E.R.O.) covering Agricultural workers.
Recommendation:
7. In light of the conflict of evidence relating to the nature
of the contract which existed from 1983 to 1986 between the
claimant and the employer the Court is not in a position to
determine whether the claimant was an "agricultural worker" for
that period as defined in the Employment Regulation Order.
The Court is satisfied that the work performed by the claimant
under a contract of service since 1986 included "work in
agriculture" and is covered by the terms of the Employment
Regulation Order made under the Agricultural Workers Joint Labour
Committee.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89747 DECISION NO. DEC290
INTERPRETATION UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE 1946 ACT
SECTION 57(1)
PARTIES: T. S. HUGHES LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Application by the worker for an interpretation under Section
57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as to whether or not he
is covered by the Employment Regulation Order (E.R.O.) covering
Agricultural workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the fuel distribution business
(domestic, industrial and agricultural), agricultural contract
work and farming (approximately 240 acres). The Company was also
engaged in the selling of heavy agricultural machinery from 1978
to 1984.
3. The Company employs one full time lorry driver and one full
time agricultural worker. Most of the work carried out on the
farm is done on a contract basis.
4. The worker here concerned was employed by the Company from
1983 up to 8th April, 1988. He was paid an hourly rate, according
to the Employer, of #3.50 nett, while the worker maintains he was
paid #2.50 an hour nett increasing to #3.50 an hour after 60
hours. During his period of employment the worker was engaged on
driving duties and farm work. He applied to the Labour Court
under Section 57(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for a
decision as to whether or not the E.R.O. for Agricultural workers
operates in respect of him. A Court investigation took place on
20th February, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers hours of duty per day varied depending on the
seasons or the type of work to be done. In the mornings he
would deliver fuel oil to private houses and to farmers. He
would then be engaged on his employers farm or another farm
where contract work was being carried out. He never worked
less than 12 to 14 hours a day, six days a week. During
harvest time his working day could commence at 3.00 a.m. to
4.00 a.m. and finish around midnight.
2. The worker also delivered gravel. He drove machinery to
Agricultural shows as well as delivering and collecting
tractors from customers. On occasions he collected fertilizer
from Slane or Arklow and then helped with spreading it.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker concerned was employed on a contract basis on
the farm, from 1983 to 1986. He also worked on other farms
during that period doing contract work. He used his own
machinery. He was paid in the same manner as other contract
workers i.e. by the acre. In 1986 he was employed full time
as a lorry driver, delivering fuel. On occasions during slack
periods he was assigned other duties. He rarely worked on the
farm after 1986 as the Company opened a quarry and there was a
lot more lorry driving required.
DECISION:
7. In light of the conflict of evidence relating to the nature
of the contract which existed from 1983 to 1986 between the
claimant and the employer the Court is not in a position to
determine whether the claimant was an "agricultural worker" for
that period as defined in the Employment Regulation Order.
The Court is satisfied that the work performed by the claimant
under a contract of service since 1986 included "work in
agriculture" and is covered by the terms of the Employment
Regulation Order made under the Agricultural Workers Joint Labour
Committee.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___10th___April,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman