Trade issues. Trial.

Stoner

We are going to give this a trial for 1 month and we'll evaluate it after that.

In this thread some of the issues that will earn users a ban in other areas of the Electrical Forum can be discussed within reason here.

This is not a free for all; we still can't make statements about particular unions, union reps, companies, company reps or individuals.

This includes direct and indirect comments, we have to be careful and any comments that can potentially generate complaints for boards.ie may be removed and the accounts under which the comments were made will be subjected to the usual control methodology leading to potential infractions and bans etc.

Also if these issues are raised outside this thread and within the Electrical Forum, they will not be merged into this thread. The old rules apply 100% outside of this thread.

I hope this goes well and that it produces quality debate and useful information for people. We also ask that users report posts that they feel may cause problems or any reason.
This can work if we all maintain a level headed approach and watch out for each other and the privately owned platform that allows us to have these discussions in the first place (Boards )

Thank you.

.G.

With the high court ruling ERO's unconstitutional recently,Our own REA will again come under further spotlight in the near future I'm sure

evosteo

Mod Edit. Evosteo. Please read rules for this thread in particular.

"This is not a free for all; we still can't make statements about particular unions, union reps, companies, company reps or individuals"

It's the first day so we can let that one slide.

2011

Form the NECI website:

NECI welcome the landmark decision of the High Court where Mr Justice Kevin Feeney upheld the challenge by fast food operators to the JLC / ERO system, which was established almost 60 years ago. This system was used to set minimum pay and conditions for certain sectors of workers. The judge ruled as unconstitutional sections of the 1946 and 1990 Industrial Relations Acts under which minimum pay and conditions are set under Employment Regulation Orders (ERO) which are proposed by JLC's (Joint Labour Commitees) for approval by the Labour Court. The core of the issue is the arguement that because criminal sanctions apply for non compliance with an ERO which has been rubber stamped by the Labour Court, the Labour Court is in effect making law. Section 15.2.1of the constitution states that the sole and exclusive power to make laws is vested in the Oireachtas.

The Criminal Sanctions for breach of the Registered Employment Agreement which has been operating since 1990 in the Electrical Contracting Industry were also rubber stamped by the Labour Court under the 1946 Industrial Relations Act. This poses obovious questions regarding the legalility of our own Agreement. If a seperate legal challenge to the JIC /REA system is necessary NECI will not be found wanting. We will seek further clarification from our legal team as to the fallout from the Judgement by Justice Feeney. We will also get clarification regarding the legal standing of NECI members who have been, or are in the process of being criminalised by the courts for allegeded breaches of the electrical REA.

Todays Judgement completely vindicates the position taken by NECI since its formation. We have always been of the opinion that our agreement has been unlawful.

Extract from the Judgement:

On the basis of the findings made by this Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the provisions of ss. 42, 43 and 45 of the 1946 Act and s. 48 of the 1990 Act are invalid having regard to the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland and also the declaration sought that the ERO is invalid. The Court will hear the parties in relation to the terms of such declarations. The court will also hear the parties in relation to the procedure to be followed in relation to outstanding matters for consideration by the court including the issue of the damages, if any, to which the plaintiffs might be entitled.

From the Sunday Business Post:

State abandons prosecutions for JLC rules breaches
10 July 2011 By Pat Leahy Political Editor

The state is to discontinue 70 prosecutions against employers for breaches of Joint Labour Committee (JLC) rules on workers’ pay, following the striking down of the JLC legislation in the High Court last Thursday.

..and

Jobs minister Richard Bruton will brief the cabinet on Tuesday about the fallout from the High Court decision last week. Last Thursday, he said the government would seek to introduce ‘‘temporary protection orders’’ for workers who would be covered by the old system, and trade unions have called for emergency legislation.

However, The Sunday Business Post understands that no such legislation has been prepared, and informed legal sources said there was ‘‘no such thing’’ as a temporary protection order.

The TEEU website makes no mention whatsoever which suggests to me that they are not feeling confident about their situation.

BeardyDevoy

superg wrote: »

With the high court ruling ERO's unconstitutional recently,Our own REA will again come under further spotlight in the near future I'm sure

It seems to me that because the basis for declaring the ERO unconstitutional,was the delagation of lawmaking powers to the Labour Court there is little doubt that the REA system which is based on the same delegation of lawmaking powers is also unconstitutional.
I would also expect that many employers who has been taken to the Labour Court and Circuit Court will now take a court actions to compensate them for the cost of complying with what has now been declared an unconstitutional agreement.
The electrical REA which has been as good as unworkable since the challenges started in May 2008 cannot survive much longer. In my opinion the difficulties that employers have encountered while attempting to change the current agreement, will no doubt ensure that employers will be very weary of getting involved in any new agreement.

bestirishspark

superg wrote: »

With the high court ruling ERO's unconstitutional recently,Our own REA will again come under further spotlight in the near future I'm sure

What is not generally known is that we received nothing from the electricians strike in 2009. What is the point in going on strike if we achieve nothing at the end of it. I am fed up of the silence from those who are claiming to represent us.

.G.

BeardyDevoy wrote: »

It seems to me that because the basis for declaring the ERO unconstitutional,was the delagation of lawmaking powers to the Labour Court there is little doubt that the REA system which is based on the same delegation of lawmaking powers is also unconstitutional.
I would also expect that many employers who has been taken to the Labour Court and Circuit Court will now take a court actions to compensate them for the cost of complying with what has now been declared an unconstitutional agreement.
The electrical REA which has been as good as unworkable since the challenges started in May 2008 cannot survive much longer. In my opinion the difficulties that employers have encountered while attempting to change the current agreement, will no doubt ensure that employers will be very weary of getting involved in any new agreement.

I have no doubt that employers will all do their best to stay well clear of any new agreement,from an employees perspective an agreement which guarantees a certain wage level for our trade is highly desirable.What ends up happening will be very interesting to say the least.

I don't want REA's to be binned altogether but my position remains as it always has been which is for realism on both sides to acknowledged and a new agreement be struck.

.G.

bestirishspark wrote: »

What is not generally known is that we received nothing from the electricians strike in 2009. What is the point in going on strike if we achieve nothing at the end of it. I am fed up of the silence from those who are claiming to represent us.

Its well known in the trade that it achieved very little.At most all it achieved was prevent calls for lower wages at the time from actually happening.

Now its clear we have no choice in re-negotiating and hoping REA/ERO's can be given some legal standing.What's certain is,those that represent us better start earning their subs

2011

In my opinion the union rate as it currently stands is only commercially viable on a small portion of projects countrywide.
Often, particularly with domestic installations the market simply will not or cannot pay the rates demanded. The result is that more and more electricians are forced by employers to become self employed (by doing so don't get the rate), or electricians from abroad do the work cheaper (the rate does not apply to them), or a "handyman" does the work, or the work is done as a nixer (at a cost to the taxpayer and registered electrical contractors).

To me it defies logic to suggest that an electrician should be paid exactly the same rates (hourly rate, travel, pension etc.) to carry out electrical work on (for example) a domestic dwelling where the house owner has €300 to spend as an industrial electrician working on a €100 million project.

I also do not think that an employer and employee should be forced by law to contribute to a particular pension scheme. I believe that an employee should be able to decide where to invest his or her hard earned money. Otherwise there is a possibility that those involved in setting up agreements may have a financial interest in a particular pension scheme in which case they may not always act in the best interest of the investor (I know, hard to believe :rolleyes:.....)!

In my opinion that there has been too cosy a relationship between pension schemes, unions and those enforcing agreements. I feel that in the long run this did not benefit employees, employers or the economy but it did line the pockets of others.

2011

Interesting reading from the Labour Court website:

News Topic: Implications for Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) arising from the High Court Decision of 7th July 2011 in relation to Employment Regulation Orders (EROs).

News:

Implications for Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) arising from the High Court Decision of 7th July 2011 in relation to Employment Regulation Orders (EROs).

The High Court has made the ruling that the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) wage setting mechanism is unconstitutional. This has both immediate and long-term implications for the operation of JLCs.

In response, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has indicated his intention to undertake a reform the JLC structure and to introduce legislation protecting the status of workers previously covered by the various EROs produced by the JLCs. A link to the Minister’s statement on the subject is provided here.

http://www.djei.ie/press/2011/20110712.htm

The Labour Court will continue to provide updates, as they become available, on the reform on the JLCs and on the status of workers previously covered by EROs.

In the meantime, all other references on this website to the status and legality JLCs and EROs should be disregarded.

2011

From the NECI latest news:

UPDATE ON HIGH COURT RULING 02nd August 2011

In Section 34 on page 19 of Justice Feeneys High Court Judgment of the 7th of July the Judge states the following,

“Where the consequences are an ERO which is to place an obligation on an employer to apply particular wage rates and conditions of employment which can be enforced by criminal sanction, those rates and conditions must be determined and based upon principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas and not as determined by a delegated body acting in the absence of stated principles and policies.”

Having considered Justice Feeneys recent High Court decision and taken advice from our legal team and in particular considering the section of the Judgment outlined above, NECI now make the following observations.
Despite the fact that the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) has been advising Electrical Contractors that the ruling of the 7th of July 2011 does not change the legal status of the REA (Registered Employment Agreement) for the Electrical Contracting Industry, NECI are of the opinion that the system of Registered Employment Agreements is, like the Employment Regulation Orders (ERO) Unconstitutional. The reason for this is that the High Court declared it Unconstitutional for a delegated body (as is the Electrical JIC) determining wage rates and conditions which can be enforced by criminal sanctions (As in the REA) without having regard to principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas. NECI suspect that the fear that every Electrical Contractor who has paid out money's on foot of the Registered Agreement will go to the courts to get those funds returned is the major factor behind NERAs position. The Government need to realise that this last ditch effort to uphold the flawed REA system will only delay the inevitable, and that when the system of REAs eventually falls (As NECI are confident it will) the majority of Electrical Contractors will seek retribution for what they have suffered under the terms of this Unconstitutional agreement at the hands of the TEEU, EPACE and facilitated by the Labour Court. NECI will facilitate it's members in every way possible to achieve this retribution. Since its formation in 2008 NECI have never changed it's opinion regarding the legal status of the electrical REA.

This agreement was entered into in 1990 by employers who did not hold (and still do not hold) a negotiating licence and were not substantially representative as required by section 27 of the flawed 1947 Industrial Relations Act. It is shocking that the protests by the Majority of Electrical Contractors who have been forced to comply with the terms of an unlawful agreement by the activities of a Trade Union and a Private Company who stand to gain financially from every Contractor who is conscripted, have fallen on deaf ears. NECI understand that some legal Maneuvers in the High Court will soon see the end of the REA system. The biggest casualty from this will be the preferred pension scheme which will no doubt struggle to hold onto it's membership when employers can check out the full Market to achieve best value. We are confident that as with the challenge by the Quick Service Food Alliance, right will win out in the end. We would also assure our members that Electrical Contractors need never worry that another unrepresentative agreement will be introduced "Under the radar" as happened in 1990. NECI will never again allow the minority to rule the majority and will be wary of allowing any agreement with any Trade Union to be forced upon the business of every Electrical Contractor, big or small, operating in the state.

On the other hand, here is the latest news form the TEEU since the extremely significant High Court Judgment of the 7th of July 2011:

Press Releases

* 19th July Trade Union Leaders Support Campaign to Stop Extradition of Sean Garland

Perhaps the TEEU think it will simply go away ......

.G.

To be honest their website has always been a hopeless mess and never has anything remotely useful or informative on it about their view on things,just bog standard press releases full of the usual hot air and gusto

BeardyDevoy

The silence from the TEEU is deafening. I think they realise that even with the full support of the quangos NERA and the Labour Court the end of the REA is close.
The parties to the agreement ie. ECA AECI and the TEEU held a meeting last week to discuss The AECIs withdrawal of support for the current agreement. Personally I don't understand why AECI don't simply tell the ECA and TEEU to shove their agreement where the sun don't shine. I also heard that an electrical contractor with deep pockets has lodged papers with the High Court to get a declaration that the REA system is, like the ERO system unconstunional.
I would think that after the difficulties contractors have experienced trying to extract themselves from the 1990 agreement, it is safe to assume that there will never be another agreement allowed into the electrical industry.
Interesting Times Ahead

evosteo

will this all mean electricians will be working for the minimum wage or close to it?

.G.

If the REA is quashed and another agreement is not negotiated then it will be up to individual employers and their staff/prospective staff negotiating their own wgaes.You might get more or less then the fella beside you managed to get for himself.

In reality it will mean employers en masse paying as little as they can get away with paying and us deciding if we want to work for it or try a less demanding job for similar pay.You pay peanuts......

2011

superg wrote: »

it will be up to individual employers and their staff/prospective staff negotiating their own wgaes.You might get more or less then the fella beside you managed to get for himself.

Yup. That is the way myself and most other people work.
The employer wants to get as good a deal as possible and the employee tries to earn as much as possible. Work hard, make yourself a more valuable asset and it should be possible to negotiate a higher rate.

In reality it will mean employers en masse paying as little as they can get away with paying and us deciding if we want to work for it or try a less demanding job for similar pay.You pay peanuts......

In reality the market will dictate. If you are really good at what you do then it is easier to demand a higher rate of pay.
This applies to employers too, if they provide a good service they can generally charge more and they tend to get more work.

On the other hand as said above, pay peanuts and you get monkeys!
There is a balance.

ImBoredDotIe

Just wondering if anybody can let me know what the typical rate of pay is for one of these "engineers". Smoking detectors and doing general maintanence on systems.

Is it more or less the same as the electricians rate?

Thanks.

.G.

My mate did it till he went out on his own,he is an electrician but has worked in the fire alarm game for years.He was getting 15 quid an hour

He was servicing systems and installing+commissioning new systems for that rate

2011

ImBoredDotIe wrote: »

Just wondering if anybody can let me know what the typical rate of pay is for one of these "engineers". Smoking detectors and doing general maintanence on systems.

Is it more or less the same as the electricians rate?

Thanks.

I would think that one of these "engineers" at the very most would be paid electrician's rate, but more probably far less.

Jnealon

The fire alarm technicians I have worked with in the past would not be on great money but it would all depend on experience

2011

Bad news for EPACE from NECI:

EPACE REPORTS €25K LOSS, TEEU GETS €21,345
23rd NOV 2011

The Private Limited Company EPACE (Pensions and Conditions Electrical Limited Number 303017) has reported a €25,194 loss in its 2010 accounts which have recently been lodged with the CRO (Companies Registration Office). The accounts also show that EPACE received €163,343 from the CWPS (Construction Workers Pension Scheme), down from €210,699 in 2009. This payment is generated from the weekly 38 cent deductions from both employee and employer who contribute to the Construction Workers Pension Scheme.

Despite the loss of €25,194 the company paid out a total of €21,345 (Comprised of €17,345 for Labour Court Hearings and €4,000 for secretarial services) to the TEEU. The ECA (Electrical Contractors Association) also received €4,000. Wages, Social Welfare and pension costs for the two employees of EPACE amounted to a massive €98,066. The performance of the company in 2010 has eroded the amount of cash in hand in the bank from €918,814 in 2009 to €880,681 last year.

The accounts were signed off on the 9th of September this year by EPACE Director Eamonn Devoy of the TEEU and EPACE Director Joseph Conway of ECA.

NECI once again, Call for EPACE to be disbanded, and the remaining fund which is left in the Bank be returned to Electricians Pension Investments. It is now essential that this happens before this loss making Company spends the total fund or redirects it to the TEEU and the ECA.

2011

Just checked out the EPACE news page. Oddly enough have no news to report since the 30th of June 2011
This is despite the Justice Feeney's landmark High Court Judgment of the 7th of July 2011.
The judge ruled as unconstitutional sections of the 1946 and 1990 Industrial Relations Acts under which minimum pay and conditions are set under Employment Regulation Orders (ERO) which are proposed by JLC's (Joint Labour Commitees) for approval by the Labour Court.


The latest news from the TEEU is for

TEEU Offices Christmas Closure Arrangements

and still no mention of the ruling either.
It is good to see that they have their priorities in order when it comes to keeping members informed.

Hoagy

There's been something going on behind the scenes though, I copied this from the AECI website:


Letter to the LRC chairman.

The AECI has in the past number of weeks pursued, at the request of the NJIC, and under your chairmanship, an attempt to reach agreement between all parties to a newly revised REA (Registered Employment Agreement) encompassing all clauses of that agreement and in particular the elements of wages and conditions.

A particular part of the discussion ranged around the issue of Non Compliancy within our Industry and to this end a separate meeting was arranged between all parties to the Agreement and NERA, the official body, charged by the Government with ensuring that wages and conditions of the REA are adhered to.

The delegates of this Association at the above meetings reported back to the Executive of the AECI on the 19th October 2011 and following careful consideration of the range and content of the discussions it has reached the following conclusion.

1. The Executive do not accept that the proposal put forward on the reduction in either:
a) Wages
b) Conditions of Employment, or
c) The methodology for setting such wages and conditions

is capable of meeting the requirements of our members and do not reflect the wage rates and conditions which are being paid by non compliant contractors and worked for by employees in the market place.


2. The Executive consider that the meeting with NERA in Carlow proved conclusively to them that the state agency NERA, at this point in time, is not in a position to defend our Members against the rates and conditions being applied both by Non Compliant Contractors and Non Compliant Electricians.


3. The Executive have therefore instructed their delegates to immediately cease these current negotiations and to pursue our Members instructions for the removal of the REA for this Industry.

BeardyDevoy

Following a meeting which the majority of its members attended, the ECA leadership has been instructed to join the AECIs bid to cancel the Registered Employment Agreement.
ECA and AECI have sent a joint letter to Mr Kevin Duffy the chairman of the Labour Court requesting cancellaton under section 29 (3) of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act.
Section 29 (3) states
(3) Where a registered employment agreement does not provide for its duration or termination, the Court may, after the lapse of twelve months from the date of registration, cancel the registration on the application, made after six months' notice to the Court, of all parties thereto representative of workers or of employers
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0026/sec0029.html

While Mr Duffy has been a champion in upholding this agreement through thick and thin, it is difficult to see how Mr Duffy can refuse this particular application as it is from all the employer groups which are represented in the agreement. It now appears that his selective applications of the law of the land have run out of room to manouver and his back is to the wall to actually apply the law.

It is now clear that the failure of the parties to the current agreement to update the agreement to reflect modern working practices will cost them dearly. The TEEU will lose the most, as their members will now have to face the harsh reality of a free market.

Interesting times ahead !!!!!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

See Also
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlkfsngbgb/rss2/

Hoagy

BeardyDevoy wrote: »

It is now clear that the failure of the parties to the current agreement to update the agreement to reflect modern working practices will cost them dearly. The TEEU will lose the most, as their members will now have to face the harsh reality of a free market.

It is interesting to read the CER document on restricted electrical works. One of the various options they considered was the for registration of electricians, but they dismissed it. I wonder if the TEEU had made a submission in favour of that could the outcome have been different. It seems to me to be a major missed opportunity.

county5

Hi, I'm an electrician and luckily have work but I see my boss always gets fire alarm companies to second fix and commission the systems. I'm hopeing I see an opportunity to avoid pulling swas through manholes on nightshifts. Iv seen a couple courses such as hightec and chevron training. Just hopeing somebody could give a little advice as to what might suit best, thanks and hope it's ok that I posted this here.

mazthespark

county5 wrote: »

Hi, I'm an electrician and luckily have work but I see my boss always gets fire alarm companies to second fix and commission the systems. I'm hopeing I see an opportunity to avoid pulling swas through manholes on nightshifts. Iv seen a couple courses such as hightec and chevron training. Just hopeing somebody could give a little advice as to what might suit best, thanks and hope it's ok that I posted this here.

maybe you should do the course and explain to your boss that you would do the systems for him instead of him employing a sub contractor?? that way u would still have work. i know a few guys in the fire alarm trade and there finding it diffiuclt to get work and some are even getting back into the electrical side of things. you would need a good few maintenance contracts/ contacts to keep you going at it full time i would think. also if im not mistaken there is a lot of certification etc involved. you would need to be doing more than fire alarms to make anything from it eg emergency lighting/ intruder alarms or gas alarms etc.

county5

Thanks for the reply mazthespark, well the plan was if I felt competent enough I'd throw the idea of me doing the work and my boss sorting certs etc. At least I wouldn't have to be living out of a bag every week, it's just an idea on trying to make myself more valuable I guess

BeardyDevoy

See Attached PDF of the letter from AECI and ECA to the Labour Court requesting cancellation of the current Electrical Registered Employment Agreement.

garytopp

county5 wrote: »

Hi, I'm an electrician and luckily have work but I see my boss always gets fire alarm companies to second fix and commission the systems. I'm hopeing I see an opportunity to avoid pulling swas through manholes on nightshifts. Iv seen a couple courses such as hightec and chevron training. Just hopeing somebody could give a little advice as to what might suit best, thanks and hope it's ok that I posted this here.

The going rate for an experienced commissioning engineer is 30k up to 50k. You don't actually have to have a qualifcation as such, you just have to be " competant " which usually means a few years experience working in the trade.
Been an electrician is of course a help.
If you decided to do the installation/commision of fire alarms for your boss, you can always ring one of the bigger fire alarm companies and ask for an engineer to call you back if you are having any problems, most of them will be willing to help you out over the phone or advise you.


hope this helps

2011

garytopp wrote: »

You don't actually have to have a qualifcation as such, you just have to be " competant " which usually means a few years experience working in the trade.

Yes, it's frightening really.

Personally I think it is incredible that someone with no formal qualifications or training can work on something as important a fire alarm system and certify it.
I imagine insurance companies would take a dim view of this.