FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : MSI LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation under Section 33(1) of The Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company, which is based at the Baldoyle Industrial Estate and two Workers in relation to the application of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (Wages and Conditions of Employment) for MSI Limited. The Workers are claiming that the activities undertaken by the Company are covered in Clause 2 (second schedule) of the REA and that the wages and conditions of employment included therein should be applied in this case. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the Company is involved in installation, maintenance and repair works on bulk storage facilities on behalf of the major oil companies only and has no part in the Construction Industry or any of the related activities included in the Registered Employment Agreement.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st May, 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 2 (second schedule) of the Registered Employment Agreement provides for a rate of pay at either the A or B rate for operatives engaged in duties as undertaken by the two Claimants. This work includes pipeline laying, modification, repair or decommissioning of underground bulk storage tanks and construction work associated with these activities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is involved in providing specialist services. It does not carrry out any of the activities listed in Clause 2 (second schedule) of the Registered Employment Agreement, nor is the principal part of its business associated with the Construction Industry.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the Respondent Company is not a building firm within the meaning of the Clause 2(second schedule) of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry.
Accordingly, the claim must fail. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th August, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.