FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : MR JOHN TAHENY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages And Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) on Wages and Conditions of Employment by John Taheny t/a MT Surfacing Ltd. The Company is a Tarmacadem contractor operating in the Sout East and is, according to the Union the main contractor for works carried out by Roadstone.
The Union is claiming that the Company are not paying the corret rates of pay as provided for in the Agreement. The Company's position is that the Union entered into an agreement in 2003 for a specific rate of pay of €10.50 per hour which would be increased in line with National Wage Agreements. It is also the Company's position that the Union failed to deliver on an assurance that all tarmacadem contractors operating in the South East would comply with the terms of the agreement.
The Union submitted a complaint to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th September, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has made every effort to ensure that all firms comply with the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement. Procedures are in place to ensure that all contractors engaged by Local Authorities are fully compliant prior to commencing work.
2. The agreement entered into in 2003 provides for a rate of pay applicable at that time but does not exclude future increases agreed at national level or increases agreed at the Construction Industry Joint Industrial Council (JIC) for implementation through the Registered Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The Company is operating at a competitive disadvantage, as non compliant companies can offer more competitive prices on the basis that it is not paying the rate provided for in the Registered Agreement.
2. The Union gave an assurance that all other contractors would comply with the Agreement to ensure that the Company could remain competitive. The Union failed to do this and non-compliance continues to be a serious problem in the sector.
DECISION:
The case before the Court concerns a breach of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment)Variation Order (No:2)
2005. The Union submitted that the Employer’s wage rates were not in compliance with the Agreement and consequently that the employer was in breach of Clause 3 and the First Schedule of the Agreement.
The Union submitted claims on behalf of 18 named employees (three of which were withdrawn as they were identified as Directors of the Company).
The Registered Employment Agreement was registered in the Register of Employment Agreements on 15th March 1967 and was varied for the twenty-third time by the Court under Section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, with effect from 27th May 2005. The First Schedule gives details of wage rates applicable from 1st October 2005. For the category of workers covered by this complaint, the Court is satisfied that the appropriate rate is Grade 3 €14.83 per hour.
Decision of the Court
In accordance with Section 32(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 the Court directs the Employer herein to comply with Clause 3 and the First Schedule of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment) Variation Order (No: 2) 2005 and pay €14.83 per hour to the 15 named claimants from 1st October, 2005.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.