A trade union was given leave by the High Court yesterday to seek an order preventing the Labour Court varying a registered employment agreement on wages and conditions by including a provision in which subcontractors might be engaged in the construction industry.
Mr Justice Barr gave permission to the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU) to obtain a number of reliefs against the Labour Court by way of judicial review. BATU submits terms and conditions of employment in the construction industry are regulated by an agreement between the Construction Industry Federation and the ICTU's Construction Industrial Committee made in 1967 and varied 21 times. Terms and conditions provided by the agreement are the minimum which must be legally applied by any employer to a worker.
A provision relating to the circumstances in which subcontractors might be engaged is not an agreement relating to remuneration or conditions of employment, the union claims.
In an affidavit, Mr Patrick O'Shaughnessy, BATU general secretary, said as a result of amalgamations and transfers of engagements, some of the trade unions originally named as parties to the agreement no longer existed. Consequently, parties to the present agreement were six unions which did not have bricklayers as members.
The Joint Industrial Council for the Construction Industry was established in 1965 and met regularly until 1982 when its activities were suspended due to differences between employer and union representatives. BATU or its predecessors were always represented on the JIC.
In December 1996, the JIC was reconstituted. BATU had no representative on the reconvened council. At the council's first meeting, it was agreed registration of a subcontracting agreement was a matter of priority.
The issue of subcontracting was most contentious and divisive, he said. Traditionally, employers in all trades in the industry other than bricklayers and perhaps carpenters engaged subcontractors. Bricklayers were the only group in the industry who, until recently, had always been employed directly by the main contractor.
It was clear that before any decision could be taken to alter BATU's outright opposition to the use of subcontracting, its members would have to be consulted and balloted. This had not happened. Its members were not represented at the main discussions which led to the other trade unions agreeing to the CIF's proposals on subcontracting.
Mr O'Shaughnessy said he wrote to the Labour Court informing it that BATU was opposed to what he understood to be some of the proposed variations. In a letter of May 18th last, the union was informed the Labour Court had rejected all its submissions.
He informed the Labour Court that the union was considering seeking judicial review of its decision. On June 10th, he was informed the Labour Court would refrain from making a formal order until July 1st.
On the application of Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for BATU, the High Court imposed a stay preventing the Labour Court making the proposed order until the judicial review is determined.