REA1190

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/11/74

DECISIONNO.REA1190

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

PARTIES :

STONE IDEAS LIMITED

- AND -

UNITE THE UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan

SUBJECT:
1. Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay

BACKGROUND:

2. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st August, 2011. The following is the Court's decision:

DECISION:

This is a complaint by UNITE Trade Union, made pursuant to Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, alleging a contravention of the Registered agreement for the Construction Industry (Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay) by Stone Ideas Limited. Specifically, the Union contends that the Company is covered by the Agreement and that it has failed to register its employees in an approved pension, assurance and sick pay scheme in accordance with the Agreement.

The Company claims that it is not a building firm in that its principal business does not involve an activity referred to in the Second Schedule of the Agreement. It contends further, and in the alternative, that if it is a building firm (which is denied) its employees are not in a category covered by the Agreement

The Company is in the business of manufacturing and fitting worktops for use in domestic buildings. The worktops are made of natural stone or quartz. The Court was told that quartz in a synthetic material which is designed to resemble natural stone.

The Court was told that the Company was incorporated in April, 2010, and commenced trading in May of that year. It appears that since it commenced trading 45.78% of its turnover was generated from the sale of products made from natural stone and 19.69% from the sale of goods made from quartz. It further appears from the evidence proffered that 29.53% of its overall turnover came from a contract for the laying of stone paving which was subcontracted to another party and a further 4.23% was derived from the use of its plant to cut stone for another party and other miscellaneous activities involved in the fixing of worktops.
Conclusion of the Court

The First Schedule to the Agreement defines a building firm as follows: -

“a firm the principal business of which is one or a combination of any of the following activities;
(a) The construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, painting, decoration, fitting of glass in buildings, and the demolition of buildings;(b) The installation, alteration, fitting, repair, painting, decoration, maintenance and demolition in any building, or its site, of articles, fittings, pipes, containers, tubes, wires or instruments (including central heating apparatus, machinery and fuel containers connected thereto) for the heating, lighting, power or water supply of such buildings;(c) (i) The clearing and laying out of sites for buildings.
- - (ii) The construction of foundations on such sites.
    
    (iii) The construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance within such sites of all sewers, drains and other works for use in connection with sanitation of buildings and the disposal of waste.
    
    (iv) The construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance on such sites of boundary walls, railings and fences for the use, protection or ornamentation of buildings.
    - (v) The making of roads and paths within the boundaries of such sites.
  - (d) The manufacture, alteration, fitting, and repair of articles of worked stone (including rough punched granite and stone), granite, marble, slate and plaster."
The Union relies on paragraph (d) of this definition in advancing its claim. It seems to the Court that on a plain reading of that paragraph the Agreement brings within its ambit a firm the main commercial activity of which involves the manufacture and fitting of any articles of worked stone. On the evidence before it the Court is satisfied that the principal business of the Company involves the manufacture and fitting of stone worktops and other activity involving the use of stone. It is therefore a building firm within the meaning of the Agreement. In relation to the categorisation of the employees of the Company, the Court is satisfied that they are properly classified as construction operatives and are encompassed by the terms of the Agreement.

In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Union’s complaint is well-founded. However, the Court will make no further order at this stage and allow the parties to have further discussions in light of the Court’s decision. If agreement is not reached the Court will made an appropriate order if asked to do so by either party.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
12th September, 2011______________________
CONChairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.