FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : OMC ENGINEERING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY BUTLER CUNNINGHAM & MOLONY SOLICITORS) - AND - THREE NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application for an interpretation of Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment).
BACKGROUND:
2. An application was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 33(1) of Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th September, 2009. The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an application by Mr. Richard Grogan, Solicitor, on behalf of three workers for an interpretation of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment) (the Agreement) and its application to the Respondent. It is brought under Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The Court heard submissions from both sides. Ms. Emer Costigan, B.L., on behalf of the Company, submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to the Respondent. She stated that the business of the Company is not one of the activities specified in the First Schedule to the Agreement which defines the activities covered by the Agreement. She informed the Court that the Company is engaged in the design, manufacture, supply and, in certain circumstances, installation, of metalwork products to residential and commercial building sites. She stated that the principal activity of the Company is the manufacture of metalwork products which products comprise for the most part staircases, balconies, balustrading and once-off feature metalwork items.
Mr. Grogan on behalf of the group of workers, submitted to the Court that the Respondent is a “building firm” covered by the definitions contained in 1(a) and (b) of the Second Schedule to the Agreement.
The Respondent submitted details of its wage costs and turnover of the Company broken down into the various sections of its operations –viz.Management; Technical/Design; Administration; Manufacturing; Delivery/Driving and Installation costs.
The Court is satisfied from the information supplied that the “on-site” aspects of the work form less than 50% of the Company’s business.
Having investigated the matter and examined the figures submitted by the Company, the Court is satisfied that the Respondent’s principal business is not a building firm and consequently is not a firm covered by the Second Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment) and is therefore not covered by the terms of the Agreement. Therefore, the Court decides that the Agreement does not apply to the Respondent.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th November, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.