FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Electrical Contractors Association (ECA, the Association of Electrical Contractors (Ireland) (AECI) and the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) entered into a Working Rule Agreement many years ago and this agreement was registered in the Register of Employment Agreements on 24th September 1990. It was varied for the fourteenth time with effect from the 11th May 2007 by order of the Labour Court under Section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
The dispute before the Court concerns an increase in pay for electricians. The electricians in question are employed in the electrical contracting sector and are, therefore, covered by the Registered Employment Agreement (REA).
The increase in the rate for 2008 was determined in accordance with Clause 25 of the REA and the TEEU subsequently applied to the Labour Court to vary the Agreement. However a number of parties objected to the application and the parties subsequently obtained an interim injunction preventing the Labour Court from hearing, inter alia, the application. therefore the increase in the rate has not yet been applied.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) meetings under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th July, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that the Employer is attempting to place preconditions on the application of the agreed pay increase due to its members from 1st April 2008 and maintains that the Employer does not have this facility.
2. The Union maintains that the Agreement arrived at earlier has nothing to do with the terms and conditions laid down in the NJIC Agreement and that the pay rate and subsistence are issues covered by the latter Agreement (REA).
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that implementation of the increase in the rate is subject to the new rate being registered with the Labour Court. To pay the increased rates in the absence of registration would place contractors at a competitive disadvantage.
2. The ECA is fully committed to the REA and the delay in implementing the increase is regrettable. However, it is due to circumstances outside of our control.
RECOMMENDATION:
The increases in dispute in this case area provided for in a collective agreement between the ECA and AECI, on the one part, and TEEU on the other. It is a valid subsisting agreement which, in normal circumstances, should be honoured by all parties.
However, the agreement is registered under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2004. The increases were agreed on the understanding that they would become incorporated in the REA by way of a variation order and thus become universally applicable throughout the sector. This, in the Court's view, was a fundamental term necessarily implied in the agreement reached by the parties. Having regard to circumstances outside the control of the parties to the REA it has not been possible to make such a variation order at this time.
In the Court's view it would be unfair and commercially unsustainable to expect the employers who are party to the REA to pay the disputed increases in circumstances in which others, against whom they must compete, cannot be obliged to pay the new rates.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the issue be referred back to the NJIC for the industry and kept under review. Either party should be free to refer the matter back to the Court at a future date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th August, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.