FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : MCR PERSONNEL LTD T/A MCR GROUP (REPRESENTED BY WATERS & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS) - AND - MILAN CHRENEK (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (Wages and Conditions of Employment)
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an application by the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) in relation to the applicability of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (Wages and Conditions of Employment) to operatives placed into employment by the Respondent. The Union is seeking an interpretation that the Company is obliged to pay the rates of pay as provided for in the Agreement. It contends that Clause 10(h) of the Agreement is applicable to the Respondent Company as it deals with sub contractors who supply "labour only" operatives and are engaged in construction based activities.
The employer's position is that it does apply the rates of pay set out in the Agreement but is not obliged to do so as it is not classified as either a building or civil engineering firm even in circumstances where it is engaged in the provision of labour to those firms.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 10th November, 2010 in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th January 2011.
The following is the Court's Decision:
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an application made by the Union on behalf of a named Worker (hereafter the Applicant) pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946. This application is grounded on a contention by the Union that the Respondent is encompassed by the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry by operation of Clause 10 of that Agreement.
Clause 10 of the Agreement places obligations on principal contractors in respect to the engagement by them of sub-contractors. It is not suggested that the Respondent in this case is a principal contractor within the meaning of the Clause in issue. Accordingly Clause 10 has no application to the Respondent and the Court must hold that the application is misconceived.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th February 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.