An investigation has begun into a claim by Siptu that Hungarian workers on one of the State's highest-profile construction projects are being grossly exploited. It is the latest in a succession of trade union claims about under-payment and exploitation of migrant workers.
Siptu says the workers, employed by a sub-contractor on the development of Spencer Dock in Dublin, are working 69 hours a week for less than a third of the legal minimum rate for the job.
The allegation, following the disclosure last week of under-payments to Polish workers at the ESB power station in Moneypoint, will further embarrass the Government and employers as talks continue on a new partnership deal. Unions and employers have so far been unable to agree measures to combat exploitation of migrant workers.
An investigation into Siptu's claim concerning the Spencer Dock project has been put in place by the main contractor on the site, John Sisk & Son, and is expected to be concluded within days. Siptu construction branch official Brendan O'Brien said last night between 20 and 25 Hungarian labourers were affected. He said the men had told him they did not receive pay slips and were each paid €1,700 in cash monthly by their Hungarian employer, Boros Csabba.
They had also said they worked from 7.30am each day until 7pm, from Monday to Saturday. When overtime and travel entitlements were taken into account, the men were in effect receiving €4.50 an hour, Mr O'Brien said. They were entitled to a minimum of between €14.85 and €15.33 an hour under the legally-binding registered employment agreement for the construction industry, he pointed out.
Boros Csabba is sub-contracted to carry out work on the Spencer Dock site by an Austrian company, Konhausner, which in turn was contracted by John Sisk.
Neither the Hungarian nor the Austrian company could be contacted for comment last night.
A spokesman for John Sisk, however, said all sub-contractors on the site were specifically required to be in compliance with all employment legislation. Any company found to be in breach would be "put off the site", he said.
An audit had been in place for several months to check that all subcontractors were complying with all the relevant legislation.
