FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : JAMES O' BOYLE TRADING AS JAMES O' BOYLE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR (REPRESENTED BY SHEEHAN RYAN & COMPANY) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION (TEEU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of June, 2006, and a hearing took place on the 25th of September, 2007, in Tralee. The following is the Court's decision:
DECISION:
This dispute came before the Court by way of a complaint by TEEU that James O'Boyle trading as James O'Boyle Electrical Contractor failed or neglected to comply with specified provisions of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Electrical Contracting Industry (the REA). The complaint was made pursuant to Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
By way of defence the Solicitor for the Respondent employer made extensive legal submissions to the Court the import of which were that since it was a sole trader it did not come within the scope of the REA. It based these submissions on the proposition that the provisions of the REA relied upon by the Union are applicable only to "firms" and that a sole trader is not such an entity.
These submissions were previously advanced and considered by the Court in Decision 06120,HoranHomes (Castlemaine) Ltd and BATUand in Decision 072,CK Decorators and INP&DTG. In both cases the submissions were rejected by the Court on the basis that the word "firm" must be understood in its colloquial meaning as referring to a business or enterprise regardless of its legal persona. The Court adopts that reasoning in this case.
The point taken by the Respondent is, however, entirely misconceived. The REA at issue in this case is expressed to apply to Electrical Contractors. An Electrical Contractor is defined by the REA as "the proprietor of a business whose main activity is the performance of electrical work". There is no doubt that the Respondent in this case is a proprietor of such a business. Moreover, the reference to the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry at Rule 23 of the REA is merely for the purpose of describing the range of pension and sick pay benefits applicable to workers encompassed by the REA. It does not purport to bring the electrical contracting industry within the scope of the Construction Industry REA.
For all of these reasons the Court is satisfied that the submissions made by the Respondent in defence of this complaint are devoid of any merit.
The Court is satisfied on the information before it that there is a prima facie case that the complaint is well founded. Accordingly, in the absence of voluntary disclosure, it will request the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to undertake an inspection of the Respondent's records for the purpose of obtaining details of employees within the scope of the REA and to consider the complaint in detail when this information is obtained.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2007______________________
CON/MC.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.