FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : THOMAS DRIVER PLANT HIRE LTD - AND - INP&DTG DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Pensions Assurance And Sick Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. It is the Union's claim that the Company are in breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement on Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay. The Company claims that it is not covered by the Agreement and therefore does not have to pay into the Construction Federation Operatives Pension Scheme . In December 2005 the Company wrote to the Union raising questions about the REA and its obligations. In January 2006 the Company enrolled its employees in the scheme. However, at this stage the Union had already referred the complaint to the Labour Court. Subsequent to this in March 2006, the Company deferred payment into the scheme while awaiting clarification on whether it came under the REA.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 There have been formal complaints going back to 2002 from the Company's employees that they are involved in construction work.
2 A number of workers have confirmed to the Union that all of the vehicles in the possession of the Company are involved in construction activity.
3 The company has approximately 20 workers. Only 7 were registered with the Pension Scheme. The Union have requested to see the Company's contracts for work as evidence that they are involved in construction work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is a licensed haulier and is therefore not covered by the Construction Industry REA.
2 Following receipt of a statement regarding the nature of the Company's business from its accountant, the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency informed the Company that it did not come under the remit of the Construction Industry REA.
3 The Construction Federation Operatives Pension Scheme refunded the three payments made by the Company on confirmation that they were not under the remit of the REA.
DECISION:
This case concerns an alleged breach of a Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay) and is brought under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard submissions from both sides. The Managing Director of the Company submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to it. He stated that the Company is principally engaged in the business of “road haulage” and is not one of the activities specified in the First Schedule to the Agreement, which defines the activities covered by the agreement. The Court notes that in a letter from the Chief Executive of the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency dated 28th June 2006 to the complainant Union, the Agency stated:
- “This firm does not come under the remit of the Registered Employment Agreement (Pensions Assurance & Sick Pay).”
Furthermore, the Agency returned contributions made under the scheme to the Company.
The complainant Union submitted to the Court that the respondent is a firm engaged in construction work and is covered by the definition of a Civil Engineering firm as outlined in the First Schedule to the Agreement.
Having investigated the matter, the Court is satisfied that the respondent is not a firm covered by the First Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pension, Assurance and Sick Pay) 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
2nd October, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.