# Does anyone know what the history and background of REA's is?



## ajapale (15 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> How the hell are these agreements [_Registered Employment Agreements_] legal?



Im interested in the history and background of these REA's. Can any one help?

If posters want to rant or post polemic they can do so on other threads but can this thread be kept to discuss the history and background of REA's.

When were they set up? Why were they set up? What are the broad objectives of the REA's? Are they reviewed for effectiveness? How do they differ in their operation from the normal collective bargaining process? Are there similar arrangements in other jurisdictions (UK, Australia, NZ, US, Canada, other EU countries etc). Do they relate only to "craft" industries?

from citizens advice:


> * Information     					*
> 
> In addition to agreements such as the national minimum wage, some employees in Ireland are covered by other agreements regarding their employment. These agreements deal with the pay and working conditions of the employees concerned and may be included in an employee’s contract of employment.
> 
> ...


aj


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2009)

Some info on their background and current status here:     Is the end nigh for the JLC and REA system?     
 By Enda Mc Guane resolvehr.ie


----------



## Hoagy (15 Jul 2009)

I think REA's first appeared in legislation in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2009)

Hoagy said:


> I think REA's first appeared in legislation in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.



Yea, that's what I said. 

(Form the link I posted): _"An ERO gives legal status to rates of pay and conditions of employment set by statutory bodies called Joint Labour Committees (JLC), which were established under the Industrial Relations Act 1946"_


----------



## Hoagy (15 Jul 2009)

Our own Electrical REA was known as the Working Rule Agreement before it was registered, which I don't think  covered wage rates.
I started in the trade in 1967 and at that time there was an ETU rule book which was fairly similar.  I imagine it grew into the Working Rule Agreement.


----------



## Hoagy (15 Jul 2009)

Actually, we're both wrong.

It was Section 50 0f the Conditions of Employment Act 1936.

The relevant Dail debate is [broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2009)

Hoagy said:


> Actually, we're both wrong.
> 
> It was Section 50 0f the Conditions of Employment Act 1936.
> 
> The relevant Dail debate is [broken link removed]



I'm blaming Enda Mc Guane


----------



## ajapale (15 Jul 2009)

Extract from that Dail Debate:It is interesting to note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass) recognised  in 1935the problems associated with rival trade unions he did not anticipate a problem with rival (rogue/breakaway) employers groups!



> The whole purpose of the series of measures which we propose is to institute in relation to all occupations, where undesirable exploitation of labour might occur, machinery for the regulation of working conditions, which will prevent abuses, and which will enable the State to exercise a general supervision over these conditions of employment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2009)

> There are in this country, and in every country, employers who will seek to secure competitive advantages over their rivals by employing workers for longer hours, less wages, or in less satisfactory conditions than others. The effect of such action by any one employer in an industry is generally to reduce the working conditions of all branches of that industry, because in modern life, with the considerable competition for markets which exists between employers in all competitive trades, no employer can for a long time succeed if he maintains a higher standard of working conditions, a higher rate of wages, or shorter hours than other employers with whom he is in competition.


What a load of rubbish. The best people take the best jobs. Quality labour offers its own competitive advantage. The man it reading out of the Bearded Brethrens play book.


----------



## ajapale (16 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> What a load of rubbish. The best people take the best jobs. Quality labour offers its own competitive advantage. The man is reading out of the Bearded Brethrens play book.



Hi Purple,

Im surprised at this post as the quality of your contributions are always of a much higher standard!

I think it is interesting that these words were spoken in 1935 and articulate the union view better than many today's TU representatives.

aj


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2009)

ajapale said:


> Hi Purple,
> 
> Im surprised at this post as the quality of your contributions are always of a much higher standard!


 You mustn't read that many of my posts


----------



## thecribber (28 Jul 2009)

Registered Employment Agreements (REAs) are based on legislation introduced into law under the 1946 Industrial Relations Act.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0026/index.html

The primary purpose of this law was to protect employees in highly Labour intensive industries, which due to the lack of automated machines, were extremely common at the time. (These industries were mainly woolen mills, tailoring, shoemaking, etc) Competition to win orders in these Industries was intense and often led to the management of a particular factory imposing a pay cut on its employees to enable to company to be the most cost effective and thereby be in the best position to win an order. (This concept is the so called “Race to the bottom” often referred to by the Unions) 

The 1946 Act ensured that all employers were paying the same pay and conditions and therefore employees would not suffer when decisions had to be made as to how low a price would be dropped to ensure an order was won.

The REA system was successful at the time but automatic machines and employee education has resulted in the current situation where only 4 of the current 67 registered agreements are now active.

(See here for a list and note the dates when change last happened)
http://www.labourcourt.ie/Labour/Information.nsf/vwLCG/Chapt008?OpenDocument

One very important part of the 1946 act is that, when an REA is registered by the Labour Court it becomes Legally Binding on all employers and employees operating in the sector whether they were party to the REA or not. This in general will not be a problem is as required by section 27 (3) c of the 1946 Act all parties are “substantially representative”
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0026/sec0027.html#zza26y1946s7

The situation regarding the Electrical REA is as follows

There has been a working rule agreement of some form or other between the Unions (Pre 1990 there were 2 Unions) and the electrical employer body’s since 1920. This is where the Unions are coming from when they make statements like “we have had stability in the industry for the past 90 years. It is important to note that this agreement pre being “registered” only applied to the employer bodies and the unions who had a say into it.

In 1990 the situation changed when the parties to the agreement applied to the Labour Court and succeeded in registering the agreement. The effect of this is to make it legally binding on all electrical contractors
It is clear now that the Labour Court broke the Law then as the employer parties were not as required by section 27 (3) c of the 1946 Act “substantially representative”

*27.*—((3) Where an application is duly made to the Court to register in the register an employment agreement, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, register the agreement in the register if it is satisfied—
( _c_ ) that the parties to the agreement are substantially representative of such workers and employers,


_While no information is available from 1990 Current informed estimates indicate that approx 10 to 12 % of employers were represented in the employer side of the agreement_.

See http://www.ier.ie/ (Irish Electrical Review) for Independent Estimates 
(its about ¾ way down the document under the heading Representation Levels)

(EXTRACT)
From its files of issues published between 1989 and 1995, Irish Electrical Review has determined the following:
1. In 1990 the AECI had 258 members and the ECA had 60 members, a total of 318 between them (assuming there were no dual memberships). 
2. The Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland was formally unveiled on 14th April 1992 and “approximately 350 contractors have now been approved for membership certification” (April 1992 issue). 
3. Within six months, “already over 1,000 electrical contractors have been registered” (November 1992 issue). 
4. Within two years, RECI membership “now stands at approximately 1,600 with a potential for as many as 1,800” (RECI Chairman Noel O’Riordan, March 1994). 
5. By the end of 1994 RECI had “almost 1,700 fully paid-up members” (Noel O’Riordan, January 1995). 
If there were 1,800 electrical contractors in Ireland in 1990, the two employer parties to the REA represented 17.66% of them. ECSSA was established in 1997 and within one year had up to 1,000 members, most of whom would have been ‘beyond the RECI radar’ until then. If there were as many as 2,500 electrical contractors in 1990, the ECA/AECI level of representation was lower, at 12.72%.
Today the AECI has 285 members and the ECA 52 members, a total of 337 between them. The combined membership of RECI and ECSSA is 5,278 electrical contractors, but there are a small number of dual memberships (although these are no longer permissible since 5th January 2009). It is also a matter of conjecture how many of these are employers under the terms of the REA – or, indeed, would be employers as and when they win contracts requiring an increased workforce.
In 2005, in evidence to a Joint Oireachtas Committee, Gerry Goggin of the AECI stated: “As regards non-aligned contractors, there are in excess of 4,000 registered electrical contractors in the State, of whom almost 550 are members of trade associations such as the AECI and ECA. It is clear that approximately 3,500 electrical contractors are not represented by this system. That is a major part of the problem.”
If there are now, say, 5,000 electrical contractor employers, the AECI/ECA represent 6.74% of them. If a ‘generous allowance’ of 1,000 is taken as the number of non-employer registrations, then there are currently some 4,300 electrical contractor employers, of which 7.84% are represented by the AECI/ECA.

(ALSO FROM THE SAME REPORT)
On the employee side, there are an estimated 23,000 – 28,000 electricians in the industry (50 ECA members employing an average of 100 electricians, 300 AECI members with an average of 12 each, and 4,900 other registered contractors averaging three or four each). The TEEU represents 8,000 – 10,000 electricians, or between 29% and 44% of the workforce.
On the employer side, there are around 5,250 registered electrical contractors, all of whom are subject to the REA. The ECA and AECI’s combined membership of 340 contractors is 6.5% of the total (and they employ about one-third of the electrical contracting labour force).


Now it becomes clear why the majority of Electrical Contractors are legally bound by an agreement into which they have no say. There is no provision in the law to allow others have a say if repersentation levels change. There is also no provision to allow another Union a say if employees join or set up a new Union. 

The obvious questions are 
(1). Why did the unrepresented contractors not object in 1990? The answer to this is simple “The Labour Court accepted that ECA and AECI were substantially representative and applied the law without checking the true situation” The unrepresented majority contuined working away and were told nothing. 
(2) why has it taken until now (19 Years) before problems have happened. The answer to this is also simple. In 2001 the parties to the REA set up a private Limited company called “Pensions and conditions electrical Ltd” (EPACE) to enforce to terms on the previously unknown REA on all Contractors. http://www.epace.ie/ 
This private company whose directors include TEEU officials has employed more TEEU officials to aggressively enforce the agreement on contractors who had never been educated or even known about the agreement in the first place. 


Seehttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/88390 andhttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/89332
(attached to these are actual EPACE returns to the (CRO) Companies registration office)

The rouge groups as they are now being called are in the main contractors who have never been represented before, and these employers are challenging (in the high court) the original REA registration and the grounds (among Others) that the Labour Court broke the law under section 27 (3) c in 1990. 

The Unions now release that their cozy arrangement with the larger employers and their little money earner (EPACE Ltd) is under serious threat of being exposed and are flexing their muscles to prevent the truth from coming out.
Sorry about the long explanation but it’s a complicated situation. Hope this is of help.


----------



## Purple (28 Jul 2009)

Very interesting and informative post cribber but do you have a bias to declare?


----------



## thecribber (28 Jul 2009)

To be honest I knew nothing regarding REAs 18 months ago, I have found it necessary to find out the truth as I am one of the unrepresented contractors who cannot keep my company viable and at the same time comply with this REA.   Because there is no inability to pay clause in the agreement. See full electrical REA here http://www.epace.ie/REA%20(2).pdf
I am faced with two stark choices.

1 Comply with the agreement and go out of business
2 Break to law

I find Nether of these options very attractive so await the outcome of the current investigation and the High Court case (due in Sept or Oct) with great interest.
 Hope I can hang on that long


----------



## z109 (28 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> What a load of rubbish. The best people take the best jobs. Quality labour offers its own competitive advantage. The man it reading out of the Bearded Brethrens play book.


Well, it was in 1935. There was huge excess of labour all over the world. The traditional emigration release-valves had dried up. Most economies had become managed fictions of the free market. In that situation, a level pay rate for the one growth industry (rural electrification) was important to keep what remained of the economy level.

Luckily we are not facing into the situation of a global depression with rocketing rates of unemployment, collapsing trade, a return of the managed economy, and a requirement to vastly upgrade the electricity network.

Anyway, back OT, I suspect the REA was a result of the need for balance in a time of economic fragility between employers and employed for the good of the rest of society as much as for the good of participants.


----------



## ajapale (29 Jul 2009)

Some off topic posts consisting of polemic and disparaging references to "whiskered fat cats" or "bearded brethren" have been deleted. 

Thecribbers posts above are a good example of the kind of factual and balanced posts which discusses the issues (history and background of REA's) and avoids generalised rants and polemic.


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2009)

The cribber, are you aware of any legal actions being taken based on what appears to be a clear breach of the law by a small group seeking to impose their will on the majority?


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2009)

yoganmahew said:


> Well, it was in 1935. There was huge excess of labour all over the world. The traditional emigration release-valves had dried up. Most economies had become managed fictions of the free market. In that situation, a level pay rate for the one growth industry (rural electrification) was important to keep what remained of the economy level.


 It was a clumsy and ill-thought out idea which has been superseded by the minimum wage and a raft of other employment protection legislation. 
Does anyone know why this has never been addresses in the context of other employment rights bills?



yoganmahew said:


> Luckily we are not facing into the situation of a global depression with rocketing rates of unemployment, collapsing trade, a return of the managed economy, and a requirement to vastly upgrade the electricity network.


 Ok, we don’t need to upgrade the electricity network but other than that...


----------



## thecribber (30 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> The cribber, are you aware of any legal actions being taken based on what appears to be a clear breach of the law by a small group seeking to impose their will on the majority?


 

I am fully aware of the current legal challange. Will be interesting to see what the outcome is.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2009)

thecribber said:


> I am fully aware of the current legal challange. Will be interesting to see what the outcome is.


I'm not, that's what I was asking. Can you outline what's happening?


----------



## thecribber (3 Aug 2009)

The registration in 1990 of the agreement operating electrical contracting sector is being challenged on a number of fronts. In June 2009 at the request of the challenging parties the high court allowed all the different cases to be in effect rolled into one and it is expected that the full hearing will happen in Oct. this year.

Case One 
This case involves an electrical contractor from one of the border counties who claimed he could not operate his company profitably under the terms of the agreement. With the consent of his employees he broke the agreement and continued to trade. He was taken to the Labour Court by the TEEU (of which none of his employees are members) and the Labour Court of course found the Unions claim that he was in breach of the agreement “well founded”. He has never made any secret of the fact that he is in breach of the agreement. The employer was fined in excess of 250000 euro but refused to comply and would not pay the money. As is the law the case was sent to the circuit court and was heard last September in Longford. The Justice in the circuit court refused to criminalise the employer and actually stated “This man has committed no crime”. The Justice referred the case to the High Court as a Case Stated. This happens when a circuit court Justice needs to clarify a “point of law”

Case Two
Two different groups of employers have claimed the REA is in breach of section 27 (3) C of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act in that the employer representatives are not and in fact never have been substantially representative. It is clear to all now that whatever the employer representation was in 1990 when the agreement was first registered, there is no way anyone can claim that the current employer bodies are substantially representative.
Link to section 27 of the 1946 Act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0026/sec0027.html#zza26y1946s27

Case Three
The employer groups who are challengeing the agreement have claimed that the 2 employer groups who are involved in the agreement are in breach of section 6 (1) of the 1942 Trade Union Act. In that they are not holders of a valid negotiation licence.
The act clearly states _“It shall not be lawful for any body of persons, not being an excepted body, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment unless such body is the holder of a negotiation licence.”_
Link to section 6 of the 1942 act.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1941/en/act/pub/0022/sec0006.html#zza22y1941s6
There is an argument that the Larger employer group the ECA can claim this they have the use of the CIF’s negotiation licence as they are affiliated to them, but the AECI are completely exposed as the do not and never have been the holders of a negotiation licence. 
There is an interesting offshoot here. A National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) which has been registered by the Labour Court is an excepted body under the Act. 
See this link for more details 
http://www.lrc.ie/ViewDoc.asp?CatID=17&fn=/documents/work/assistance_to_jic_and_jlc.htm&m=w

The electrical JIC have never applied to be registered. This was highlighted in the recommendation from the Labour Court in Feb. 2009 
Link Here see page 76
http://www.neci.ie/downloads/Labour%20Court%20Determination%20REP091%20Electrical%20REA.pdf

If they had applied to be registered in the past there is no doubt the labour Court would have facilitated this despite the fact that under section 59 of the 1946 Industrial relations act the Labour Court cannot and should not register a council unless the employer bodies are 
“YES !!!!YOU GUESSED IT” substantially representative.
Link to section 59 of the 1946 act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0026/sec0059.html

Case four 
I will not do the detail on this one but it concerns the constitutional rights of a person to enter a private mutually satisfying deal with an employer and these REAs take away that right. The case is basically claiming that REAs are in breach of the Irish Constitution.

Case five
Again no great detail is necessary but the case claims that REAs are in breach of the competition laws which have come into law since 1946 when the law upon which the agreements was put in place. The claim is that REAs are in effect a form of “price fixing”.





As I said at the outset the High Court has agreed that it makes sense to hear all these arguments and cases at the same time, as they are all concerned with the same Registered Employment Agreement.

The Labour Court and the 3 parties to the agreement are the ones been taken to the High Court except in the Case stated where a Circuit Court Judge is questing a Point of Law.

Hope this was Useful


----------

