FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CROWE ENGINEERING LTD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged breach of Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. Crowe Engineering Ltd. is an electrical contracting firm incorporated in 1962 and is, therefore, covered by the Registered Employment Agreement(REA) for the Electrical Contracting Industry. The Company's registered address is in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union regarding an alleged breach of the REA, rules 7 and 13(a), for the Electrical Contracting Industry, on the part of the Company, for the non-payment of subsistence to some electricians on a site in Tullamore, Co. Offaly.
- It is the Union's contention that the Company's registered address in Dublin is their base and therefore, the site in Tullamore cannot be considered to be a base. The Union further contends that the Company was operating a policy that all employees recruited would be deemed to be recruited on site as local labour and these employees were required to sign a contract of employment, which undermined the terms of a National Registered Agreement.
The Company contends that during the currency of the Tullamore project the Company did not have any redundancies in Dublin based core work force and staff for the Tullamore project were taken on from those who applied locally. Clause 13 of the REA states:"Local men who offer themselves for employment on a country site, shall, if engaged, be paid at the prevailing rate. Subsistence shall not be paid and the hours shall be in accordance with Rule 1."Local men is a term applied to men who present themselves for employment at the site, thereby defining themselves as local.
- On the 17th October, 2005, the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 32 if the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Court hearing was held on the 1st March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. If an employer lets employees go and subsequently re-hires them to avoid paying subsistence, this would be a totally erroneous action, for the purposes of avoidance of their obligation. There is no provision in the REA to elect not to pay subsistence on a particular site.
2. The Company is attempting to apply a section of the agreement, unilaterally to all employees for the purpose of avoidance of their obligation under the Registered Agreement, which under all normal circumstances, has the Company address registered as the base and subsistence would apply to all employees who would be required to work in Tullamore.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company complies fully with the REA. Subsistence is paid to workers employed at it's office and covered by the agreement, who are working on sites over eleven miles from the shop. All employees who presented themselves for work at the site, and were employed, have been paid in accordance with the agreement.
2. Over the past ten years approximately, the Company has experienced difficulty in transferring workers living in Dublin to sites around the country. The Company has always endeavoured to facilitate workers as far as possible in these situations. The necessity of transferring workers or of actively recruiting new workers did not arise on the site in Tullamore as the majority of workers on sire offered themselves for employment. No other worker employed by the Company was made redundant during the term of the contract in Tullamore.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions,
The Court Decides that, in this particular case, the Company has abided by both the letter and spirit of the Registered Employment Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th March 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.