Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95125 Case Number: DEC953 Section / Act: S57(1) Parties: MS BERNADETTE SMITH (TRADING AS QUICK STITCH DICK BRANNIGAN, BERKERY & CO SOLICITORS) - and - DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT |
Application by an employer, Ms Bernadette Smith, for a decision as to whether the Women's Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee (JLC) operates in respect of a former employee, Ms. Mary McEvoy.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the evidence, the Court is satisfied that
the Women's Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee operated
in respect of Ms Mary McEvoy during her period of employment by
Ms. Bernadette Smith.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95125 DECISION NO. DEC395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
SECTION 57(1)
PARTIES: MS BERNADETTE SMITH
TRADING AS QUICK STITCH
(Represented by Dick Brannigan, Berkery & Co Solicitors)
and
DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT
SUBJECT:
1. Application by an employer, Ms Bernadette Smith, for a
decision as to whether the Women's Clothing and Millinery Joint
Labour Committee (JLC) operates in respect of a former employee,
Ms. Mary McEvoy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a former employee who claims that the
rates of pay as prescribed in the Womens Clothing & Millinery
Employment Regulation Order (ERO) were not applied to her during
the period of her employment by Ms. Smith.
3. An inspector from the Department of Enterprise and Employment
investigated the claim and on the basis of information obtained,
requested payment of arrears to the complainant. Ms. Smith
indicated by letter dated 2nd August, 1994 that she had received
advice that her business of carrying out repairs did not come
within the scope of the ERO and requested a detailed examination
of her business by the Department.
4. It was agreed between the Department and the Secretariat of
the J.L.C. that a further inspection of the business should be
carried out. The inspection was carried out on 25th August, 1994.
Ms. Smith informed the inspector that 80% of her business involved
inserting new zips in garments for both male and female clients.
The remainder of the business involved various types of
alterations to garments. The inspector also spoke to two
employees who agreed with the position as outlined by Ms. Smith
with regard to the work carried out by the business.
5. As a result of the inspector's report which showed that
alterations to both male and female clothing were carried out, it
was decided by the Department of Enterprise and Employment that
the matter be referred to the relevant Joint Labour Committee for
its opinion as to whether or not the business of Ms. Smith came
within the scope of the J.L.C.
6. On the 23rd November, 1994 the Secretary of the J.L.C.
informed the Department that the Committee, at its meeting on 18th
November, 1994 had concluded that the employees of Quick Stitch
were workers in respect of whom the J.L.C. operates.
7. The employer was informed of the JLC's decision. On the 5th
January, 1995 the Department received a letter from Ms. Smith
which indicated that she did not agree with the decision and
requested that the case be referred to the Labour Court for a
determination under Section 57(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1946. The Court heard the case in Dundalk on 27th June, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer does not make garments on the premises
either in part or in full and therefore does not come
under the provisions of the Employment Regulation
Orders (Women's Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour
Committee).
2. The repair work undertaken by the Employer includes
both male and female garments. The Employer contends
therefore that the work is outside the scope of the
Employment Regulation Orders.
3. By virtue of the above, the J.L.C. does not operate as
respects the former employee.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Part IV of the Schedule to the Employment Regulation
Orders (Womens Clothing Joint Labour Committee) defines
workers to whom the orders apply. Included in the
definition are those workers engaged in the altering,
repairing, renovating or re-making of such garments as
coats, costumes, coatfrocks, mantles, service clothing,
dresses, skirts, wraps, blouses, blouse robes, jumpers,
sports-coats, neckwear, tea-gowns, dressing-gowns,
dressing-jackets, pyjamas, underclothing, underskirts,
aprons, overalls, juvenile clothing, baby-linen or
similar articles. Other tasks included in the
definition are laundering, smoothing, folding,
ornamenting, boxing, packing, warehousing or other
operations incidental or appertaining to the making,
altering, renovating, or re-making of any of the above
mentioned articles. The above definition shows that
the work carried out by the employees of Ms. Smith
comes within the scope of the E.R.O.
2. Ms Smith has provided no evidence that her business is
an undertaking which operates outside the scope of the
E.R.O. It is the Department's view that the E.R.O.
applies to Quick Stitch.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the evidence, the Court is satisfied that
the Women's Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee operated
in respect of Ms Mary McEvoy during her period of employment by
Ms. Bernadette Smith.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th September, 1995 ____________
L.W./U.S. Chairman