Electriclinks Irelands Electrical Portal

UPDATED: The Labour court have decided to adjourn until 18th December.

Please find below NECI's report.

Press Release

Labour Court Report 27th November 2009

The purpose of Today’s Hearing was to vary the agreement by an increase in pay upwards following an application by the ECA and the TEEU.

The Chairman started by asking if there any preliminary issues that needed to be dealt with. Council for the Unaligned Contractors requested an adjournment pending the High Court case scheduled for next week. She stated that this hearing was too close to the High Court case which her clients needed to be involved with, “how can my clients be expected to be in two places at the same time?” she said. She stated that there was an impression of bias and prejudgement surrounding today’s hearing. Talks that led to the current proposed pay rise were private, “We sought to be included and we were excluded, we sought detail of any paperwork which led to the current recommendation and we were denied” she said. Council then went on to say “A major issue is that an agreement was made in July, we were excluded and now we are expected to agree”. The pay rise being put forward here, is the same pay rise rejected by the Court in February of this year. The economy has actually got worse and the only thing that has changed is that there has been a strike by electricians! Is this what has changed the Labour Courts mind?

Council for the Unaligned Contractors then objected to the chairman (Kevin Duffy) being involved with this hearing as he is a deponent for the Labour court in the upcoming High Court case.

The chairman stated “If you have difficulty with any party sitting here, the court will look at that. He then started to explain the events in July which led to the current proposed pay rise.  Council for the Unaligned Contractors said “this is all new to us as we were not allowed to be involved. What happened in July has led to this recommendation from the Labour Court”

The chairman stated “That was a recommendation between the parties to a dispute” “Yes but all contractors will have to pay it” said Council. The Chairman replied “Not necessarily, other parties need not accept it”

“I am asking the Court to adjourn this hearing until the High Court has dealt with the matter” replied Council.

Owen Wills (TEEU) said “In relation to any adjournment this would be an abuse of this Court. The High Court lifted an injunction because there was no undertaking given to pay electricians loss of earnings if the challenge fails.  Council for the Unaligned Contractors replied “that was a separate set of proceedings” “I would be totally opposed to an adjournment” replied Owen Wills.

The ECA representative then also applied for an adjournment until the High Court proceedings were dealt with and the result of the minister’s report was released.

Council for NECI was next to speak “My clients have two important points to make, the first is the issue regarding negotiating licences. My clients want an answer to this question, where do the ECA and AECI get the power to negotiate for the entire industry in this agreement? The chairmen replied “I am not sure how we can be of assistance; it’s not an issue we can address.

Council for NECI went on to say “We also have an issue with you chairman hearing this case. As far as my clients are concerned there is a perception of a conflict of interest associated with your involvement in this hearing. We also have a difficulty in that my clients were not a party to the July Meetings which led to the current proposal. My clients requested to be allowed in a letter dated July 6th but were denied. We also don’t know what happened since you rejected this increase at the February hearing, which caused the Court to now recommend the increase, all that has happened is that the economy has got worse.

Council for the Unaligned Contractors said “Mr Wills made a submission that contained an accusation, that accusation was not correct” The chairman replied” If there is an issue concerning the validity of the REA that is a matter you can make a submission on at another time”. The chairmen went on to state “The application is to adjourn until the High Court proceedings are dealt with, and the minister’s report is issued.” We have a difficulty with that said Owen Wills, we can see some merit in waiting for the report but this matter needs to be dealt with.

Jack Hegarty of AECI then stated “I would be agreeing to an adjournment, there is a question from Miss McKenna (NECI Council) about the ENJIC. Her client Mr. Judge was a comfortable member of the ENJIC. We got together to set up something that we thought would be of benefit to the Industry”

Following a request from Denis Judge to be allowed respond to Jack Hegartys statment, the chairman said that no responce was necessary as Mr Hegartys comments were not revelant to the issue before the court.

The court then recessed to make a decision.

When they returned the Chairman said “We have considered the various applications in regard to an adjournment. We have decided to adjourn until the 18th of December for mention. If the report is available it may be relevant. It may be something on which parties may make submissions. We will also know more what the situation will be with regard to the High Court challenge. This division (of the Labour Court) does not regard itself as having jurisdiction in this matter; another division may take this matter up.

There followed a brief discussion as to the need to re-advertise the December hearing