FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CORNHILL ELECTRICAL LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has been in correspondence with the Company for over two years and throughout this time the Company has never responded to requests for information regarding their compliance with the Registered Employment Agreement for the Electrical Contracting Industry (REA). As the Union are therefore unable to determine whether or not the Company is either compliant or indeed within the scope covered by the Agreement the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 6th November, 2008 in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th August 2009.
DECISION:
This is a complaint by the Technical Engineering & Electrical Union (TEEU) (hereafter "the Complainant") that Cornhill Electrical Limited, having its registered offices at 10 Brook Park, Finnstown Abbey, Lucan, Co. Dublin (hereafter "the Respondent") alleging a breach of the Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement (Construction Industry Pensions Assurance and Sick Pay) (hereafter "the REA") made pursuant to section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, as amended ("the Act").
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 and Rule Number 22 & 23 by its alleged failure to enter its employees in an approved pension, assurance and sick pay scheme as required by the REA.
Counsel for the Respondent raised preliminary issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the within complaint and the order sought by the Complainant. There is no issue concerning the applicability of the REA to the Respondent. However, thelocus standiof the Complainant to maintain the complaint was disputed by Counsel, as he claimed that none of the Respondent’s employees were represented by the Complainant.
Section 32(1) of the Act provides as follows: -
- 32.—(1) If a trade union representative of workers affected by a registered employment agreement complains to the Court that any employer of any class to which the agreement relates has failed or neglected to comply with the agreement, the following provisions shall have effect—
( a ) the Court shall consider the complaint, and shall hear all persons appearing to the Court to be interested and desiring to be heard;
( b ) if, after such consideration, the Court is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded, the Court may by order direct the said employer to do such things (including the payment of any sum due to a worker for remuneration in accordance with the agreement) as will in the opinion of the Court result in the said agreement being complied with by the said employer.
Therefore, the Court is satisfied that section 32(1) of the Act provides in clear terms a statutory mechanism for enforcing the terms of an REA by providing that a complaint alleging a breach of a Registered Employment Agreement may be made by the Trade Union which is party to the agreement.
The Complainant in this case is a party to the Registered Employment Agreement, which is the subject of the complaint.
The Court is satisfied that it can investigate a complaint under section 32 of the Act as it is referred by a party who has standing to bring the complaint. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
Counsel for the Respondent accepts that the Respondent company is a firm covered by the REA, that it employees are workers covered by the REA.
Orders Sought by the Complainant
The object of the Order sought by the Complainant is (i) to secure the correct rate of pay for electrical workers employed by the Respondent and (ii) to secure the pension, assurance and sick pay entitlements of the Respondent’s employees. In order to do this the Complainant sought an inspection of the Respondent’s records for a period of 3 to 6 years prior to the date of the hearing.
Counsel for the Respondent submitted in the event of the Court finding that it had jurisdiction to investigate the complaints, that it should order the Respondent to produce the necessary records in order to ascertain the outstanding monies (if any) due.
Section 32(1)(b) of the Act provides that where a complaint under the section is well-founded the Court may, by order, direct the employer to do such things (including the payment of any sum due to a worker for remuneration in accordance with the Agreement) as will in the opinion of the Court result in the REA being complied with by the employer.
The Court notes that the Complainant has been in written correspondence with the Respondent since 15th June 2007, none of which has been responded to.
Decision
The Court is satisfied on the information before it that there is a prima facie case that the complaints are well founded. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, it will request the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to undertake an inspection of the Respondent's records for the purpose of obtaining details of employees within the scope of the REA and to consider the complaint in detail when this information is obtained.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th September, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.