Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94382 Case Number: INT943 Section / Act: S33(3) Parties: JOE MADDEN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED - and - THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION (C.I.F. |
Interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) on Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties finds
that the Pension Scheme proposed by the Company does not satisfy
the requirements of the Registered Employment Agreement
(Construction Industry Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay) for the
following reasons:
(1) The Sick Pay provision is voluntary.
(2) The Court is not convinced that the Pension Scheme as
outlined by the Company would compare with the minimium
provisions of the C.I.F. Scheme.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94382 INTERPRETATION NO. INT394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 33(3), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES:
JOE MADDEN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY KILRANE O'CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
AND
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION (C.I.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered
Employment Agreement (REA) on Pensions, Assurance and Sick
Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1992 the Labour Court issued REA number 19/92
which directed Joe Madden Limited to comply with the terms of
the Construction Industry REA (Pensions, Assurance and Sick
Pay) in respect of any worker in its employment. The Company
failed to comply with the REA.
A District Court summons was subsequently issued and
proceedings took place in Ballaghaderreen District Court on
26th May, 1994, at which submissions were made on behalf of
the Company regarding Pension and Sick Pay Schemes which it
arranged in relation to its employees. The Judge indicated
that he wished to have the opinion of the Labour Court as to
whether the Company's scheme was as favourable as the
Construction Industry REA (Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay).
The District Court hearing was adjourned to enable the
Construction Industry Federation seek an interpretation from
the Labour Court as to whether the Scheme is as favourable as
the REA. A Labour Court hearing took place in Dublin on 8th
September, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has been treated unfairly by the C.I.F. and
is opposed to joining its scheme.
2. The Company is prepared to use any scheme which the
C.I.F. considers suitable. It has obtained the best
scheme available which compares favourably with the
terms of the REA (Pension, Assurance and Sick Pay) for
its employees.
3. Under the terms of the scheme, Life Cover is #20,000,
and Sick Pay is paid for a period of 10 weeks. The
employees of the Company have indicated their
satisfaction with the scheme.
FEDERATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is not the intention of the C.I.F. to operate a
monopoly with regard to the provision of Pension,
Mortality and Sick Pay benefits in the Construction
Industry. The REA clearly stipulates the basic level of
cover required and also the basic level of premium to be
paid. Any Scheme that provides these basic benefits
will satisfy the REA. The Scheme offered by Joseph
Madden Construction Limited does not satisfy the REA for
the following reasons:
(a) From the documentation provided it appears that
mortality cover is merely a refund of the employees
contributions (perhaps with interest) and is
therefore considerably less than the basic amount
of IR#15,000 required under the Registered
Agreement.
(b) It appears that the Sick Pay Scheme referred to is
nothing more than a promise by the Company to pay
the appropriate level of Sick Pay benefit. This
does not meet the requirements of the REA.
(c) No provision is made to provide for post retirement
increases.
(e) The Scheme offered by the Company is a personal
pension arrangement and not an occupational Pension
Scheme, and is approved under different legislation
compared to that appropriate to occupational
Pension Schemes. This means that it is not
possible to carry out a transfer payment should the
members leave the industry and take up other
employment.
(f) The Registered Agreement provides that a member,
upon reaching retirement age, becomes entitled to a
cash tax-free lump sum and a retirement pension.
The benefits arising under the private Scheme
require that the member surrender part of his
pension in order to receive a cash tax-free lump
sum.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties finds
that the Pension Scheme proposed by the Company does not satisfy
the requirements of the Registered Employment Agreement
(Construction Industry Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay) for the
following reasons:
(1) The Sick Pay provision is voluntary.
(2) The Court is not convinced that the Pension Scheme as
outlined by the Company would compare with the minimium
provisions of the C.I.F. Scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th September, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman