FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : BRALDI LIMITED TRADING AS BONNAR-LUBY-BUTLER CONSTRUCTION - AND - ARTURAS VERIUGA (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Interpretation of a Registered Employment Agreement (REA).
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's case is that he was employed by the Company from 15th November, 2004, to 21st August, 2008. The Company is in the construction business and the worker claims that he did a variety of jobs whilst employed. He was not joined into the Construction Workers' Pension and Sick Pay Scheme (CWPS) and he is seeking a decision that he was a worker who was covered by the REA for the Construction Industry.
He referred his case to the Labour Court on the 20th May, 2009. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th October, 2011, in Limerick. The Company did not attend the hearing nor forward a written submission. The following is the Court's decision:
DECISION:
- This matter came before the Court by way of an application by Arturas Veriuga, c/o Richard Grogan & Associates, 16/17 College Green, Dublin 2, for an interpretation of the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Wages and Conditions of Employment) (the Agreement) and its application to him. It is brought under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 provides as follows:-- "The Court may at any time, on the application of any person, give its decision on any question as to the interpretation of a registered employment agreement or its application to a particular person".
Mr. Richard Grogan, Solicitor, representing Mr. Veriuga (the Applicant) informed the Court that the Applicant was employed by Braldi Limited t/a Bonnar-Luby-Butler Construction (the Respondent) from 15th November, 2004, until 21st August 2008. Mr. Grogan sought a declaration that the Applicant was an employee encompassed by the provisions of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry and, accordingly, should have been covered by the Construction Industry Pension and Sick Pay Scheme.
The Respondent did not attend the hearing before the Labour Court.
The Applicant gave evidence that he worked as a Construction Operative for the Respondent for the period of his employment as outlined to the Court.
Mr. Grogan produced a letter to the Court headed “Braldi Limited t/a Bonnar-Luby-Butler Construction” which outlined the reasons for the termination of the Applicant’s employment : -- “I’m writing to inform you of 1 week’s notice due to the lack of appropriate work available as you are aware the construction Industry is going through a difficult time at present. We would like to thank you for your services to our company.”
While the Respondent was not in attendance to give evidence, on the basis of the information/evidence put before it, the Court is satisfied that while employed by Braldi Limited t/a Bonnar-Luby-Butler Construction, Mr. Arturas Veriuga was employed by a building firm within the meaning of the Second Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pay and Conditions of Employment) and is therefore covered by the terms of the Agreement.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th October, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.