FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : SINCON ENGINEERING LTD (REPRESENTED BY JOHN G. FLYNN, SOLICITOR) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement on Wages and Conditions of Employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is primarily engaged in steel fabrication and engineering works/manufacturing. The primary activity of the Company takes place at the Company works at Conna, Fethard-on-Sea, Co Wexford. The Company occasionally does work on site, historically this has been limited. The Worker concerned was principally retained as a driver as he was unable to take part in any heavy construction-related work. Currently the Company has no workers on site.
The Worker concerned was employed by the Company on a temporary basis from the 19th June, 2006 to 8th January, 2007. His rate of pay was €11/hour. This was below the then rate as prescribed in the Joint Labour Committee Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry. The Union claim that the Worker should have been in receipt of the REA rate for General Operatives Grade 3.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 17th July, 2007 under Section 32 of Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Court hearing took place on the 30th October, 2007. The following is the decision of the Court:-
DECISION:
This case concerns an alleged breach of a Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment ) and is brought by the Union against the Employer under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in relation to one named employee, whom the Union submitted was incorrectly paid during his employment from 19th June, 2006 to 8th January, 2007.
The Company's Solicitor submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to Sincon Engineering Limited. He stated that the Company is primarily engaged in steel fabrication and engineering works/manufacturing and as such is not engaged in one of the activities specified in the Second Schedule to the Agreement, which defines the activities covered by the Agreement. The primary activity of the Company takes place at the Company's works at Conna, Fethard-on-Sea, Co. Wexford. Up until May 2007 the Company occasionally carried out work on site but since that date all site work is contracted out. In any event, the Solicitor contended that the Worker involved in the claim was not covered by the definition of "class of workers to which the Agreement applies" as contained in clause 2 of the Agreement. He was principally retained as a driver.
The complainant Union submitted to the Court that the Respondent is a building firm engaged in the construction of foundations on sites and is covered by the definition of a Building Firm as outlined in the Second Schedule to the Agreement.
To substantiate its position the Company submitted comprehensive information to the Court, including details of on-site labour costs expressed as a percentage of the Company's annual turnover. Figures for 1st March, 2006 to 28th February, 2007, which encompass the dates of claim, indicate that on-site labour costs account for 4.53% of the Company's turnover for the period.
Having investigated the matter, the Court is satisfied that the Employer is not a firm covered by the Second Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment) and is therefore not covered by the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement.
Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the complaint is not well-founded and dismisses the complaint.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.