Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91355 Case Number: DEC911 Section / Act: S57(1) Parties: T.S. HUGHES LIMITED - and - A WORKER;BRADY AND COMPANY, SOLICIORS |
Application by a worker for an interpretation under Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as whether or not he is covered by the Employment Regulation Order (E.R.O.) covering Agricultural Workers for the period from 1983 to 1986.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of evidence produced prior to the hearing as to
the decision of the Department of Social Welfare to the effect
that the claimant was under a contract of service insurable at
P.R.S.I. Class "A" from 5th September, 1983 to 18th April, 1988,
the Court decides that this period of service is covered by the
terms of the Employment Regulation Order made under Agricultural
Workers Joint Labour Committee.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91355 DECISION NO. DEC191
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INTERPRETATION UNDER SECTION 57(1) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: T.S. HUGHES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY J. FAGAN AND ASSOCIATES)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY BRADY AND COMPANY, SOLICIORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Application by a worker for an interpretation under Section 57
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as whether or not he is
covered by the Employment Regulation Order (E.R.O.) covering
Agricultural Workers for the period from 1983 to 1986.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company from 1983 to
8th April, 1988. On 20th February, 1990 the Labour Court
investigated his application for a decision as to whether or not
the E.R.O. for Agricultural Workers operates in respect of him.
The Court issued the following decision on 10th April, 1990:-
"DECISION:
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."
In June, 1991 the worker because of new evidence requested the
Labour Court to review its decision in respect of the period 1983
to 1986. The Court investigated the matter on 3rd September,
1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Department of Social Welfare has decided that the
worker concerned was employed by the Company from 5th
September, 1983 to 18th April, 1988 under a contract of
service insurable at Pay Related Social Insurance Class A.
Accordingly, the Court is requested to decide that the worker
is covered by the E.R.O. for Agricultural Workers for the same
period 1983 - 1986.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer did not contest the decision of the
Department of Social Welfare and is not contesting the
worker's application.
DECISION:
5. In the light of evidence produced prior to the hearing as to
the decision of the Department of Social Welfare to the effect
that the claimant was under a contract of service insurable at
P.R.S.I. Class "A" from 5th September, 1983 to 18th April, 1988,
the Court decides that this period of service is covered by the
terms of the Employment Regulation Order made under Agricultural
Workers Joint Labour Committee.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th September, 1991 _______________
A.S./J.C. Deputy Chairman.