FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CEDARWOOD PARK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED - AND - RAMUNAS VANSEVICIUS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Interpretation of an Registered Employment Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed as a General Operative in September 2006 until August 2009 when he was given his P45. The Worker claims that he is an Employee covered by the provisions of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement and is seeking a declaration to this effect from the Labour Court. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 20th August 2009, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Employer or his representative did not attend at the Labour Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Worker was originally joined into the CWPS scheme in 2006 but in March 2008 he received confirmation that contributions were not being paid.
2. The Employee is also seeking a declaration that he should have been paid at a higher hourly rate since October 2008.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions before it the Court is satisfied that it cannot issue a Determination in the form sought for the following reasons:
1) The Employer concerned had acknowledged that the Worker involved in this case came within the scope of the REA, paid him accordingly and registered him in the Construction Industry Pension Scheme. The Worker concered was effectively disputing the grade on which he was being paid by the Employer. The REA provides procedures for resolving disputes between individuals and their Employers. No evidence was presented to the Court to indicated that the Worker tried and failed to avail of these procedures. It would be inappropriate therefore for the Court to issue a Determination in accordance with Section 33(1) in respect of a matter that should, in the first instance, have been processed through the machinery set out in the REA prior to any referral to the Labour Court.
2) No evidence whatsoever as to the nature of the business in which the Employer was engaged or the capacity in which the Claimant was employed by the Respondent was presented to the Court for its consideration and consequently there is no evidential basis on which the Court could make a Determination in the form requested under Section 33(1).
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
31st August, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.