FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 33(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : TIDY HOME LTD - AND - MR ZIGURDAS DAUGULIS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of REA
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an application for an interpretation of the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement (REA) Wages and Conditions of Employment submitted in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th June, 2012. The following is the Court's Decision:
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an application by Mr Zigurds Daululis, 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) (hereafter referred to as the “REA”)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, Richard Grogan & Associates, representing Mr Daululis submitted that the Applicant was a General Operative carrying out building work and that the Respondent, Tidy Homes Limited is a construction company within the meaning of the REA. Mr. Grogan sought a declaration that the Applicant was an employee encompassed by the provisions of the REA and accordingly should have been covered by the Construction Industry Pension and Sick Pay Scheme and paid in accordance with the REA.
Ms G. Novolenko on behalf of the Company submitted to the Court that the REA does not apply to the Respondent. She stated the Company is engaged in providing facilities support services to property management companies and includes the following services:
- �Apartment block general maintenance
�Light bulb replacement service
�Garden maintenance
�General gardening work
�Graffiti removal
�Re-painting
�Indoor lock repaid services
�Cleaning of domestic dwellings
�Carpet/window cleaning
Ms Novolenko stated that its principal business was cleaning, maintenance, and carrying out minor jobs to enhance properties. She stated that the majority of its work involved cleaning properties in preparation for new tenants. Ms Novolenko supplied invoices to the Court to indicate the services it has provided to a vast range of clients. The Company has ceased trading since 31stDecember 2011.
Having considered the submissions made and examined the details supplied by both parties the Court is satisfied that the business of the Respondent is not one of the activities specified in the First Schedule to the REA, which defines the activities covered by the Agreement.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.