Fast food constitution challenge

MagicSean

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0316/pay.html

A group representing fast food outlets has started a constitutional challenge to the way pay and conditions are set in the catering sector.

The Quick Service Food Alliance and John Grace Fried Chicken Limited say the legally-binding system of setting wages infringes their property rights.

If the challenge succeeds, it could result in lower pay and conditions for around 300,000 workers in other sectors where pay is set in the same way.

Around 300,000 workers in sectors ranging from hairdressing, construction and catering have their pay and conditions set by mechanisms involving Joint Labour Committees, Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agreements.

It is a criminal offence to breach them.

However, many employers say the system sets wages and conditions too high, particularly given the recession, and want it abolished.

Labour Court Chairman Kevin Duffy and UCD economist Dr Frank Walsh are currently reviewing the system.

But now employers are mounting a constitutional challenge.

They argue that existing law - on the minimum wage and working hours - already give workers adequate protection from exploitation.

It says that setting sectoral wage rates in excess of those terms breaches employers' property rights.

If the challenge succeeds, up to 300,000 workers could lose the legal protection they currently enjoy, and face significant cuts in pay and conditions.

I dont see the Constitutional argument here.

234

From whay I have heard in the media it seems to be a relatively straightforward case of the delegation of legislative power. The applicant is arguing that there was an unconstitutional delegation. The state will argue that they have satisfied the principles and policies test. This case does not strike me as one that breaks any new ground.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0316/pay.html



I dont see the Constitutional argument here.

Infringement of their property rights/right to earn a living by legislatively prohibiting payment below a certain rate? It is worth a go.

There is a constitutional argument for just about anything; but given the inevitable conflct with the rights of another, few succeed.

dermot_sheehan

234 wrote: »

From whay I have heard in the media it seems to be a relatively straightforward case of the delegation of legislative power. The applicant is arguing that there was an unconstitutional delegation. The state will argue that they have satisfied the principles and policies test. This case does not strike me as one that breaks any new ground.

Probably a Cityview Press v. AnCo argument that Registered Employment Agreements are in effect delegated legislation but without the controls referred to in the cityview press case (made by a minister accountable to parliament, subject to annullment resolutions) etc etc

234

Agreed. Nothing too exciting in my opinion. Though the thread title might lead you to believe otherwise

Shelflife

I think that one of the main problems is that the JLC rates only apply to certain employers and not all, and that creates an inequality in the system.

eg: a 24yr old in a flower shop or off licence can be paid €8.65 per hour, but the same 24yr old who works in a grocery shop and sells flowers and alcohol has to be paid €9.36 thats a difference of 8% in a wage bill.

its furthur exasperated on a sunday where the grocery shop must pay €12.44 per hour yet the other shops can remain on the €8.65 making it a 43% difference.

How is it fair for the grocery shops to sell the exact same products yet be forced to pay a much higher wage.

Its unfair practise.