FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CORLIN DEVELOPMENTS LTD - AND - FOUR WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of a Registered Employment Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four foreign nationals who were employed by the Company. The Workers' case is that the Company is a construction company 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 23rd February, 2010, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th July, 2010. The following is the Court's Decision:
DECISION:
The case comes before the Court pursuant to Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946. The Court had previously addressed this matter in Decision No INT092 when it decided as follows:
- "The Court is satisfied that the activity undertaken by the Company involves alteration or repair of buildings.
That is an activity which comes within he 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 and are entitled to the rates of pay and conditions of employment prescribed by the Agreement.
The Court determines accordingly."
The evidence and submissions presented to the Court in the instant case were, in all material respects, identical to those that gave rise to Decision No INT092. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that Decision.
The Court was further asked to make a decision as to the correct grade that should be applied to four named workers. In doing so the court notes that both sides in this case agreed that each of the four was more than twenty years of age and had more than two years experience in the construction industry before commencing employment with the respondent.
The Court was advised, by both sides, as to the nature of the work carried out by each of the named workers. On the basis of these submissions the court is satisfied that the workers concerned are Grade C operatives within the meaning of the Agreement and are entitled to all the terms and conditions of employment that flow from this grading in accordance with the terms of the REA.
The Court determines accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
22nd July, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.