FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 33(3), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : BREFFNI DESIGN LIMITED TRADING AS N.E.M. ENGINEERING (REPRESENTED BY LAVELLE COLEMAN SOLICITORS) - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY P.C.MOORE & CO. SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of Registered Employment Agreement (REA) Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employemnt
BACKGROUND:
2. The case was referred to the Labour Court by way of Section 33(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A hearing took place on the 18th of September, 2007. The following is the Court's decision:
DECISION:
This matter before the Court came by way of a referral from the High Court to the Labour Court for an interpretation of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment) (the Agreement) and its application to the Respondent. It is brought under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The Court heard submissions from both sides. The Company’s representative submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to the Respondent. He stated that the business of the Company is not one of the activities specified in the First Schedule to the Agreement, which defines the activities covered by the Agreement. He informed the Court that the company is engaged in the business of :
-manufacturing balustrades, balconies, railings, gates, staircases and structural steelwork;
-stainless steel handrails and balustrades;
-the bulk of the products are for use on commercial buildings, houses and apartments, mainly constructed by building companies;
-the remainder are supplied to single house builds, shops, business and to already constructed properties;
-the company offers an installation service as part of its business.
The Legal Representative on behalf of the group of workers submitted to the Court that the Respondent is a “building firm” whose principal business is the construction and installation on building sites of stainless steel and glass garden gates, railings and handrails and that this activity is covered by the definition contained in 1(a) (b) and (c) (iv) of the Second Schedule of the Agreement. He submitted that “manufacturing” of the products must be synonymous with the “construction” of the products as envisaged by the terms of the Agreement. The Court has difficulty accepting this contention as in this case the finished products are transported to the “site” for installation.
The Respondent submitted details of its wage costs and turnover details of the Company, broken down into the various sections of its operations –viz.Management; Technical/Design; Administration; Manufacturing; Delivery/Driving and Installation costs.
The Court is satisfied from the information supplied that the “on site” aspects of the work form less than 50% of the Company’s business.
Having investigated the matter and examined the figures submitted by the Company, the Court is satisfied that the respondent’s principal business is not that of a building firm and, consequently, it is not a firm covered by the Second Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment) and is, therefore, not covered by the terms of the Agreement. Therefore, pursuant to its powers under Section 33 of the Act the Court decides that the Agreement does not apply to the Respondent.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th October, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.