FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : ROSCOMMON SEAMLESS GUTTERS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a worker who was employed as a general operative with Roscommon Seamless Gutters Limited from August 2004 to present. The Company was subcontracted to carry out work for Roscommon County Council with virtually all the main construction contractors in the area. The Union claims that the worker was in receipt of an hourly rate of €8.40 per hour. He worked an average 50 hours per week and was paid the same rate per hour for all the hours he worked. The Union is seeking that the worker be paid the proper Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) rate of pay plus the overtime rates with retrospection back to 2004 i.e.
October 2004 €14.74
April 2005 €14.96
October 2005 €15.33
April 2006 €15.79
The Union claims that the total amount due to the Claimant is €34,470.00. The Company rejects the claim as they believe that they are not covered by the REA.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th August, 2006 in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th February, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the Claimant was and is a Construction Operative. The Company is covered by the Construction Industry Employment Agreement.
2. The Union argues that the Claimant's job entailed installation of guttering on newly constructed and re-furbished private houses and commercial properties. His work took place mainly on construction sites in the Roscommon and surrounding areas.
3. The Union contends that the Company are involved in Construction work. Their employees are construction workers.
4. The Union contends that the Company's is registered with C.F.O.P.S. and membership of C.W.P.S. The workers are currently covered by this scheme
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Claimant's work with the Company is confined to the fixing of the aluminium guttering and fascia and soffit to the premises on each particular job. There is no society or affiliation constituted in Ireland governing the fixing of guttering to a premises such as the Plumbing Trade Union, The Irish Society of Woodcutting Machinists etc..
2. The Company contends that the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) does not govern the business of the Company. The Company does not accept that the Claimant is a worker to whom the class of worker to which the REA applies. The Company claims that the worker must be employed by either a Building or Civil Engineering firm.
3. The Company is not a building firm pursuant to the definition of the second Schedule of the REA. Specifically Clause 1(a) of the second Schedule refers to construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, painting, decorating and fitting of glass in buildings and demolition of buildings. The Company does not deal in manufacturing or installation of glass nor is it involved in the demolition of buildings.
4. The Company contends that the Company is not a company that is embraced by the definitions contained in the REA. Moreover, the list of what is called "Construction Craftsmen at Clause 2 (a) of the Agreement makes no reference to the fitting of guttering. In strict dictionary definition terms the word 'construction' is defined as follows:
1. The act or art of constructing
2. The way in which a thing is constructed such as 'a building of solid construction'
3. Something that is constructed; a structure for the occupation or industry of building ie."he works in construction".
5. The Company believes that the complaint made by the Claimant is not well founded.
DECISION:
It is the decision of the Court that the Company is one which is embraced by the Registered Employment Agreement of the Construction Industry. The claim should be dealt with in that context.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th June, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.