Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94275 Case Number: INT941 Section / Act: S33(3) Parties: SHREE LIMITED - and - FRANCES CAREW, LABOUR INSPECTOR;ON BEHALF OF ANDREA PARKINSON |
Referral by the Metropolitan District Court, Court No. 9 (Judge Shields), to the Labour Court for its decision as to the application of Registered Employment Agreement (Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footware, Drapery and Allied Trades) to Andrea Parkinson.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the evidence put forward by the
parties has concluded that Shree Limited is an establishment
within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the REA (Dublin and Dun
Laoghaire Footwear, Drapery and Allied Trades) and accordingly the
worker is covered by Article 1(11).
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94275 INTERPRETATION NO. INT194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 33(3), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES:
SHREE LIMITED
AND
FRANCES CAREW, LABOUR INSPECTOR
ON BEHALF OF ANDREA PARKINSON
SUBJECT:
1. Referral by the Metropolitan District Court, Court No. 9
(Judge Shields), to the Labour Court for its decision as to
the application of Registered Employment Agreement (Dublin
and Dun Laoghaire Footware, Drapery and Allied Trades) to
Andrea Parkinson.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 11th October, 1992, Andrea Parkinson complained to the
Labour Inspectorate at the Department of Enterprise and
Employment that she was not paid holiday pay by Shree
Limited. An inspection of the relevant wages records showed
that she was paid less than the statutory minimum rate of pay
and that she did not receive her annual leave or public
holiday entitlements.
Frances Carew, an Inspector appointed by the Minister for
Enterprise and Employment under the Industrial Relations
Acts, 1946 to 1990, took proceedings at the Metropolitan
District Court, on behalf of the complainant, claiming pay
and holiday pay due to the complainant on foot of the
relevant Registered Employment Agreement and the costs of and
incidental to the proceedings.
Shree Limited contended that its establishment is not an
establishment of which the business is the sale by wholesale
or retail of any of the classes of goods which come within
the scope of the relevant Registered Employment Agreement.
The District Court referred the question as to the
application of the relevant Registered Employment Agreement
(REA) to Andrea Parkinson to the Labour Court. The Labour
Court hearing took place on 9th June, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. The Company contends that its business is not covered by the
said REA. It is a shop specialising in handcrafts from the
state of India and is not engaged in the sale of drapery,
clothing or haberdashery products within the meaning of the
said REA and in particular paragraph 1 thereof.
An agreement between the European Economic Community and the
Republic of India (Council decision of 11th December, 1986)
enables European Union member States to import certain
handcrafts of Indian origin. The items of apparel as stocked
and sold by the Company, fall within the definition of
cottage industry products as identified in the said
agreements. The garments and accessories sold by the Company
are traditional handcraft textile products of Indian origin.
It is inappropriate and illogical to classify them as drapery
or haberdashery within the meaning of the said REA.
INSPECTOR'S ARGUMENTS
4. The Department is of the opinion that Shree Limited and its
activities come within the scope of Article 1(1) of the REA.
The business appears to be one in which "the principal
business is the sale by wholesale or retail of goods of the
classes named" in Article 1(1) of the REA. Furthermore the
Department is of the opinion that the worker in question is a
worker covered by Article 1(11) of the REA.
The employee concerned who made a specific complaint to the
Department informed the inspector of the products which she
sold. On this basis the inspector again formed the opinion
that the establishment and the worker in question were
covered by the REA.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the evidence put forward by the
parties has concluded that Shree Limited is an establishment
within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the REA (Dublin and Dun
Laoghaire Footwear, Drapery and Allied Trades) and accordingly the
worker is covered by Article 1(11).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. __________________
Deputy Chairperson