FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CORLIN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Interpretation of REA.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two foreign nationals who are employed by the Company. The workers' case is that the Company is a construction company registered in Northern Ireland and that it is covered by the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) for the Construction Industry. The workers believe that they were not paid at the proper rate of pay for the duration of their employment, and also that they were not included in the appropriate pension and sick pay schemes. The Company does not believe that it is covered by the REA.
The workers referred their case to the Labour Court on the 28th January, 2009, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 2009.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is involved in the alteration to buildings e.g. the construction of fireshafts and fireproofing. This is work that is covered by the REA. The workers, who are General Operatives, were also involved in a considerable amount of overtime for which they were not paid the appropriate rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is involved in the business of fire protection and consultancy. The principle element is fire proofing. The Company does not carry out any of the activities as mentioned in the Second Schedule of the REA nor is the principle part of the business associated with the Construction Industry.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the activity undertaken by the Company involves the alteration or repair of buildings.
That is an activity which comes within the definition of a Building Firm contained at Clause 1(a) of the Second Schedule of the Registered Agreement for the Construction Industry. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the Company is covered by the Agreement.
The Court is further satisfied that the workers on whose behalf this application was made are properly classified as General Operatives. They are, therefore, a class of worker to whom the Agreement relates and are entitled to the rates of pay and conditions of employment prescribed by the Agreement.
The Court determines accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th May, 2009______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.