FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : DE BROS MARBLE WORK LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ESA CONSULTANTS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Application for Interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreements (Wages and Conditions of Employment).
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his former employer in relation to the application of the appropriate pay and conditions as outlined in the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement Wages and Conditions of Employment.
The worker claims that while in the employment of the Company, he was not paid the correct rates of pay, overtime entitlements, was incorrectly graded and was omitted from the Construction Workers Pension Scheme. (CWPS)
Management's position is that the firm is not covered by the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) on the basis that it is not a Building or Civil Engineering Company, nor is it engaged in the activities mentioned in the Agreement.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th March, 2009 and a Decision sought on the issues in dispute. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th April, 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was employed as a fitter's helper according to his contract of employment. In addition he had sufficient experience to attain Grade C rates of pay rather than the Grade D rates of pay received while in the employment of the Company
2 The Company is covered by the REA, as its primary activities are those covered in the Second Schedule to the Agreement. On that basis, the worker is entitled to retrospective application of the correct rates of pay, grading, overtime payments and inclusion in the CWPS.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is not covered by the REA. It is not a Building or Civil Engineering firm and does not carry out the activities listed in the Agreement.
2 There is no manufacturing carried out at the plant. The Company is mainly involved in the alteration of marble to be fitted as worktops during kitchen installation.
3 The worker was employed as a driver/ general operative at the correct grading and rate of pay. The Company have not breached the provisions of the Agreement as it does not apply to them.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the principal business of the Company involves the alteration and fitting of worked marble. Accordingly the Company is a building firm within the meaning of the Second Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry.
The Court is further satisfied that the worker to whom this application relates is a Construction Operative within the meaning of the said Registered Agreement and is entitled to the rates of pay and conditions of employment specified by the Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th May 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.