FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 2012 PARTIES : GERARD NEILON - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement - Pensions Assurance And Sick Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union concerning the Employer's alleged breach of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (the REA). The Union maintains that the Employer is an employer that is covered by the REA and accordingly is obliged to adhere to the terms of the REA. It is the Union's claim that the Employer has failed to comply with the REA and has breached the terms of the REA arising from the alleged non-payment of pension contributions in respect of a named Worker.
The Employer disputes the Union's claim arguing that he does not carry out work that falls within the scope of the REA and furthermore, the Worker in question was not employed to carry out construction work. The Employer maintains that for a period of time, the Worker concerned was carrying out construction work however during that time the relevant pension contributions were paid for that Worker. Accordingly, the Employer rejects the Union's claim.
The case was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of June, 2011, and a hearing took place on the 7th of November, 2012. The following is the decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This case concerns an alleged breach of a Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay) and is brought under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard submission from both sides. The Company's representative submitted to the Court that the Registered Employment Agreement does not apply to the Respondent. He stated that the Respondent employed the worker concerned, Mr. K, as a general labourer on his own private property, however, he accepted that the worker was employed in a separate company, Pallasgreen Scaffolding for a period of seven weeks in 2010 and one week in 2011, during which time contributions were paid into the pension scheme in accordance with the REA.
The complainant Union submitted to the Court that the Respondent is a firm engaged in construction work is covered by the definition of a Civil Engineering firm as outlined in the First Schedule to the Agreement and the worker concerned, Mr. K, was classified as a worker covered by Section 2(b) of the REA. The Union accepted that pension contributions had been paid in respect of the worker concerned for the eight week period referred to above.
Having investigated the matter and taken witness testimony from both the Respondent and from Mr. K. the Court is satisfied that the Respondent is not a firm covered by the First Schedule to the Registered Employment Agreement) Construction Industry Pensions, Assurance and Sick Pay) and is therefore not covered by the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement.
Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the complaint is not well founded and it dismisses the complaint.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th November 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.