FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 2012 PARTIES : ANTHONY HIGGINS T/A A.H. SECURITY (REPRESENTED BY CON O'LEARY & CO. SOLICITORS) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union concerning the Employer's alleged breach of the Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement (the REA). The Union contends that the Employer carries out his business as an Electrical Contractor and as such carries out work that falls within the scope of the REA. As a result, 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 several terms of the REA. The Employer disputes the Union's claim arguing that he has always been a sole trader and has never hired any employees. The Employer asserts that he has not breached the terms of the REA and 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 5th of September, 2012. The following is the decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This is a complaint by the Technical Engineering & Electrical Union alleging a breach of the Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement (the REA) made pursuant to Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, as amended.
The substance of the complaint is that the Respondent has failed or neglected to comply with the said Agreement under Rule Number 2 concerning wages, Rule Numbers 6 and 7 concerning travel time and subsistence money and Rule Numbers 22 and 23 by its alleged failure to enter its employees in an approved pension, assurance and sick pay scheme as required by the REA.
The Union stated that based on its enquiries made in February 2011, it was satisfied that the Respondent failed to show it was in compliance with the Act, therefore the Union applied to the Court to request the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to undertake an inspection of the Respondent's records for the purpose of obtaining details of employees within the scope of the REA for a period of three years prior to the date of the hearing.
The Solicitor for the Respondent told the Court that the Respondent was a sole trader, who had never employed any employees at any time, and he submitted financial details to the Court for the period from 2008 until 2011. The Respondent gave evidence under oath to the Court affirming his position.
Decision
Based on the submissions made and the evidence given, the Court is not satisfied that the Union has produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its complaint that the Respondent was in breach of the REA. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has not been made and therefore the Court decides that the Union’s complaint is not well-founded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th October 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.