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

ajapale

Moderator
Messages
7,701
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.

  • The various agreements on pay and conditions made by Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) are known as Employment Regulation Orders (EROs).
  • Agreements which result from negotiations between trade unions and employers are called Collective Agreements.
  • If a Collective Agreement has been registered with the Labour Court it is known as a Registered Employment Agreement (REA).
JLC Employment Regulation Orders

The Labour Court makes an Employment Regulation Order (ERO) confirming proposals submitted by a Joint Labour Committee (JLC). This Order is legally binding - that is, it is set down in law. It is the JLC that agrees the rates of pay and working for the workers in the JLC’s sector of employment, for example, catering. The Employment Regulation Order made by the Labour Court therefore makes the JLC agreement enforceable by law.
View the current JLC rates of pay and conditions of employment which are contained in the Employment Regulation Orders as follows:

Collective Agreements and REAs

Collective Agreements are agreements concluded between an employer and worker representatives. Employers and workers in any sector or enterprise can agree minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment and can than have that agreement registered with the Labour Court as a Registered Employment Agreement (REA).
REAs are legally binding to the employers and employees in the sector of employment to which the agreement applies.
You can view the current rates of pay and employment conditions contained in the REAs for the following sectors:

Rules

Employers of workers covered by a JLC or a Collective Agreement are obliged to pay the wage rates and provide the conditions of employment prescribed by the ERO or REA. They must also display details of the current agreement in the workplace and keep records of wages.
Under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 – 2001 the National Employment Rights Authority is responsible for enforcing EROs and REAs and, if necessary, will take proceedings against an employer who is in breach of an Employment Regulation Order or a Registered Employment Agreement.
aj
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Actually, we're both wrong.

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

The relevant Dail debate is [broken link removed]
 
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.



It is recognised in all countries at the present time that it is necessary to have such legislation, and that the State must exercise the function of maintaining supervision over conditions in which its citizens are employed. There are very few countries which have yet adopted legislation of the nature now under consideration here, although progress in that direction has been made in various European Parliaments.



I do not know whether any Deputy will seriously question the necessity for legislation of this kind. It is now generally agreed that, in modern conditions, the employment of workers and their remuneration cannot be left to be determined solely by the laws of supply in demand.



The great development in industrial employment that has taken place in the past 50 years throughout the world, and that is now taking place here, is bound to produce certain undesirable conditions, if State action is not taken to prevent them.


Neither do I think it possible to contemplate conditions of employment and the remuneration of labour being regulated solely by trade union action.



The effectiveness of trade unions to deal properly with these matters is limited, and that is particularly so in this country at present, where we have in relation to many classes of workers, rival unions seeking these workers as members; where, I think, it is the general experience of all trade unions that where rival unions operate in relation to any class of workers, trade union organisation deteriorates, the number of workers which belongs to neither union increases considerably, and the power of the trade union movement to secure improvement in working conditions in agreement with employers is naturally lessened. That situation exists here as well as in other countries, and it is of such a nature for us, and it exists to such an extent, that we could not possibly contemplate leaving conditions of employment in workshops and factories unregulated by the State or not subject to State supervision, in the hope that in time the abuses would be eliminated by trade union action only.



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.



The fact is therefore beyond question, that the worst employer very nearly set the standard of employment in the industry in which he is engaged.



That is another reason why it is necessary that the State should be in a position to intervene to prevent any progressive deterioration in working conditions in any industry, in consequence of the desire of a particular employer to secure a greater share of the market at the expense of his competitors and workers.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and informative post cribber but do you have a bias to declare?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

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...
 
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.
 
Back
Top