REA1174

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/09/745

DECISIONNO.REA1174

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946

PARTIES :

GEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)

- AND -

BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT:
1. Alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages and Conditions of Employment.

BACKGROUND:

2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by BATU against Gem Construction Limited for alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement -Wages and Conditions of Employment.

In August 2009 the Unions' members raised the issue of their re-employment with the Company at their Ringsend, Dublin Project. As the matter was not resolved the Union was contacted.

The Union wrote to the Company who responded that it did not have any of the Unions members working with the Company at that time.

Further correspondence took place between the parties and in October 2009 the CIF wrote to BATU confirming that the Company would meet the Union. This meeting took place in February 2010.

The Union claims that the failure of the Company to meet with it within seven days of the first letter of August 2009 constitutes a breach of Clause 11(b) of the REA .

The Company claims that it never refused to meet with BATU and that both parties did meet on the issues raised.

The issues in dispute were referred by the Union to the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal/ Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement was reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st January 2011, in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th August 2011.

DECISION:

The case before the Court concerns a breach of the Register of Employment Agreements (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment). The Union submitted that the Employer was in breach of Clause 11 “Procedures for Settling Grievances and Disputes”. In particular, the complaints relate to the following :

“the failure of the Company to comply with the disputes Procedure of the REA and meet with BATU with a view to attempting to resolve a dispute”.

Clause 11 of The Registered Employment Agreement:

PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES

If a trade dispute occurs between workers to whom this Agreement relates and their employers, no strike or lock-out, or other form of industrial action shall take place until the following procedures have been complied with and the Labour Court has issued a recommendation.

Category A Disputes

For the purposes of this Agreement questions concerning local matters or matters of an individual nature are regarded as category A disputes. Where these disputes arise, the following procedure shall be complied with :
- (a) The grievance or dispute shall in the first instance be discussed between the parties concerned. If the dispute is not resolved within 3 days it may be referred to the trade union concerned and, where appropriate, the Construction Industry Federation (CIF). Notice in writing of the dispute shall be given by the individual concerned or his trade union to the CIF.
  
  (b) If the dispute is not resolved within 7 days, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed, the issue may be referred to a Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT).
  
  (c) The CIDT will issue a decision within one week. The decision of the CIDT, where unanimous, shall be binding.
  
  (d) Other decisions may be appealed to a Rights Commissioner, the Labour Relations Commission or the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) as appropriate.
  
  (e) If the issue remains unresolved, it shall be referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.

On 20th August 2009, the Union wrote to the Company and raised three issues. The Company responded within one week outlining its position. It stated that as it had no members of the Union employed at the time, it could not see how there could be a trade dispute in existence. The Union continued to pursue the matter and when it was not resolved to it’s satisfaction by March 2010, it referred the three matters raised to the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal, in accordance with Clause 11. The matters were then the subject of discussions at the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal/Labour Relations Commission and as there was no resolution at these fora, they were then referred by both parties on 31st January 2011 to a Labour Court hearing; a Recommendation was issued on 28th June 2011.

The Union’s complaint, the subject of this Labour Court hearing, relates to the length of time the process took and the Company’s failure to meet with it in the initial stages.

Having examined the process and the matters raised, the Court is satisfied that the Company was not in breach of Clause 11 of the Registered Employment Agreement (REA). The matter was processed in line with the steps outlined in Clause 11. The decision to invoke the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal and refer matters therein was initiated by the Union, not within the time frame provided by the REA, but some seven months after the matters were first raised with the Company. The Company fully engaged with this process and the matters were brought to a conclusion.

Decision of the Court

The Court finds that the Company was not in breach of Clause 11 of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry and accordingly makes no order under Section 32(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Caroline Jenkinson
18th August 2011______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.