FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CONEX DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED - AND - OPATSI DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Wages and Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two of its members previously employed by the Company in relation to an alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA). The Union on behalf of its members contends that the Company carried out work within the scope of the REA and employed the Claimants to work in circumstances that entitle them to payment on the appropriate rates of pay as set out in the REA. It is the Union's claim that the Company failed to pay the Claimants in accordance with the REA. The Union is therefore seeking an inspection of the Company's records with a view to establishing the outstanding amounts owed to both Claimants. The Company rejects the Union's claim and asserts that it does not acknowledge the validity or applicability of the REA and hence it is not bound by its terms. Furthermore, the Company maintains that the REA does not form a basis of the terms and conditions of employment of its employees. The Company also disputes the Union's claim that the Claimants carried out duties that entitled them to payment in accordance with rates set out in the REA.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th August, 2011.
The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
The issue for consideration in this case concerns a complaint by OPATSI (the Union) on behalf of two workers made pursuant to s32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 against Conex Developments Limited (the Respondent) that the Respondent was in breach of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay), (the REA) as varied.
The dispute relates to two workers Mr. Gerald Rogan employed since 27th November 2006 until he was laid off in May 2010 and Mr. Brendan McGovern employed since 13th September 2004 until he was made redundant in May 2010.
The Court heard submissions from both sides. The complainant Union submitted to the Court that the type of duties undertaken by Mr. Rogan were those of a Plasterer and accordingly he should be classified as a craftsman under the Agreement. It also submitted that Mr. McGovern was incorrectly classified as a Grade C Construction Operative when he should have been classified as a Grade B Construction Operative.
Furthermore the Union submitted that the Respondent was in breach of the REA by its failure to pay travel money and overtime payments to the two workers concerned.
The Respondent submitted to the Court that it had correctly classified the workers by virtue of the duties each performed. It denied that Mr. Rogan was employed to carry out plasterer’s duties and stated that he was employed as a “handyman”; he carried out cleaning and preparation work for skilled craftsmen who were contracted in to work on the company’s sites. He carried out general labour and snagging duties. The Respondent stated that Mr. McGovern was responsible for driving a Teleporter/JCB tractor with a hydraulic boom and low loader and accordingly was correctly classified as a Grade C Construction Operative. In any event the Respondent submitted that it paid both workers in excess of the rates stipulated in the REA.
The Respondent stated that the appropriate travel time and overtime was paid and it submitted pay records for each of the workers.
The Court notes that the workers concerned did not raise the issue of the classification of their jobs during the period of their employment and appeared to acquiesce to the classifications given.
The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties, the oral evidence given by the workers concerned and the pay records supplied by both the Union and the Respondent.
The Court notes that the Union declined to refer this dispute through the procedures provided for under the REA, which would have allowed the dispute to be dealt with by the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal in the first instance.
The REA provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between workers and their employers, including disputes concerning grading. In the Court’s view that dispute resolution procedure should be utilised to resolve any dispute concerning the appropriate grading of the workers concerned and hereby recommends that the Union should accordingly process its claims for regrading through that mechanism.
Having examined the extensive records submitted the Court is satisfied that the Respondent paid the appropriate travel money and overtime rates and consequently does not find that there was a breach of the REA.
Decision
The Court is satisfied on the information before it that the complaints regarding travel money and overtime are not well founded and recommends that the issue of classification of workers should be referred to the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th August 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.