FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : BALLYCOOLIN CONTRACT SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY DAMAR CONSULTANCY LIMITED) - AND - 2 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY POLISH CONSULTANCY ENTERPRISE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) Wages and Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and workers in relation to the applicability of the Construction Industry REA on wages and conditions of employment.
The Worker's case is that they are employed to fit windows and doors on construction sites and should be paid the appropriate REA rate for such duties.
Management's position is that although the workers are employed to fit such products on site, the Company is not a Building or Civil Engineering firm as covered by the REA and as such is not bound by its provisions. It further contends that although the workers are solely engaged in the installation of its products, the core business of the Company is manufacturing.
As the dispute was not resolved, the Polish Consultancy Enterprise (on behalf of the workers) sought an interpretation of the REA on the 13th August, 2009 in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th December, 2009.
The following is the Court's Decision:
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an application by Mr. Blazej Nowak on behalf of two 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. Mr. Richard Kearney on behalf of the Company submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to the Respondent. He 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. The Company is engaged in the manufacture, supply and installation of windows and doors.
Mr. Blazej Nowak on behalf of the group of workers submitted to the Court that the Respondent is a “building firm” covered by the definition contained in 1(a) and (b) of the Second Schedule of the Agreement.
The Respondent submitted details of its turnover details and the division of work of the Company, broken down into the various sections of its operations –viz.Management; Supply 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
7th January 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.