This article was updated at 2:55 p.m.
140 companies, as IG Spengler, are vigorously defending themselves against the idea that metal roofing should be considered an activity subject to BUAG, because this would result in short-term additional costs that are sometimes “threatening to existentially.” Without “immediate restructuring” you will go to the Constitutional Court.
The ÖVP and Greens decided on the matter with the SPÖ after an industry solution negotiated by the social partners. As an association of entrepreneurs, IG Spengler’s criticism particularly affects the Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ) – they do not feel represented by them. The IG sees its criticism confirmed by a legal opinion commissioned by the IG from the constitutional lawyer Daniel Ennöckl, which is available to the APA.
Didn’t look closely enough?
The changes to the BUAG and also to the Construction Workers’ Bad Weather Compensation Act (BScheG) were made following a government proposal and amendment request during the plenary debate and have been in effect for the BUAG since August 1st and for the BScheG since November 1st. Behind closed doors, critics are accusing the ÖVP of this and suspect that the People’s Party may not have looked at the amendment closely enough, otherwise they would not have voted for it. For plumbing companies, with the exception of ventilation and plumbing companies, the regulations on vacation, severance pay and bridging allowances of the Construction Workers’ Holiday and Severance Pay Act now apply – and in some cases retroactively. The mixed operation regulations apply to plumbing companies that also carry out ventilation and plumbing work.
The IG Spengler sees a violation of the protection of trust and wants to take action at the Constitutional Court via an individual application. “The transitional regulations that have been adopted mean that we as companies are confronted with considerable additional demands for times before the amendment comes into force on August 1, 2024, for which we were unable to build up reserves – since the regulation applies retroactively in parts,” criticizes IG -Spengler co-initiator Paul Haberhauer from the company Haberhauer Dachzentrum told the APA.
The spokesman for the IG, Alois Perwein from the GmbH of the same name, harshly criticizes the representatives of his guild in the Chamber of Commerce: “The federal guild of roofers, glaziers and plumbers boasts of having worked out an industry solution with the BUAK board and remains silent about it that the regulations are unconstitutional.” Since there are also certain changes to existing employment relationships, there is “the potential to drive companies into financial ruin”.
“Additional brake block”
Among other points, this involves a claim for additional pay from previous periods of service and a sixth week of vacation after 20 instead of 25 years. This has recently resulted in payment obligations into the BUAK system – this year.
“The additional bureaucratic effort and additional costs hit us in a phase of economic stagnation,” complains Perwein, an “additional brake block” that is being placed on the guild. The opposite of the constantly promised reduction in bureaucracy is happening in reality.
The amendment to the law was preceded by a decision by the Administrative Court (VwGH), according to which roof coverings with metal are considered activities subject to BUAG. Ultimately, the Administrative Court determined that in order to clarify the applicability of the BUAG for certain work, it must first be checked whether this work falls under the BUAG obligation. In a mixed operation without organizational separation, the decisive factor is whether an employee predominantly carries out such work.
Constitutional lawyer Ennöckl concludes that the Administrative Court did not declare that all activities of plumbing companies would necessarily fall within the scope of application of the BUAG. “In fact, this is only the case for those activities that, according to the trade regulations, can also be carried out by roofing companies.” Plumbing businesses should be viewed as “classic” mixed businesses.
“Working hard on it”
The Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ) announced in a written statement that the guild of roofers, glaziers and plumbers is still negotiating with the social partner and the BUAK about the costs of purchasing the sixth week of vacation and “other cost-minimizing details”. “We are working hard to further improve the framework conditions for inclusion.”
The chamber also referred to the Administrative Court. One finding says that there is an obligation to register the employees of plumbing companies in the BUAK. If this does not happen, after an inspection by BUAK, they will be included in accordance with the rules of the Construction Workers’ Holiday and Severance Pay Act (BUAG), which would entail very high costs for the companies. Therefore, the guild “reacted immediately to prevent greater damage to the companies. Together with the social partner and the BUAK, an industry solution that was better for the companies was achieved, which is up to 75 percent cheaper than statutory inclusion.”
The actual number of plumbing companies in Austria is difficult to determine. Although there are 2,133 valid business licenses, not all of them are actually active anymore and there are also many one-person businesses among them. There are 1,189 active email addresses – this became known through the mobilization of IG Spengler. In the entire specialist group of roofers, glaziers and plumbers, there are currently 16,300 employees (excluding part-time employees); according to the IG, around half are employees in plumbing companies. The 140 IG member companies have an average of 20 to 25 employees, i.e. around 3,000.
ePaper
**Interview with Paul Haberhauer, Co-Initiator of IG Spengler**
**Editor**: Thank you for joining us today, Paul. There’s a lot of concern regarding the recent changes to the Construction Workers’ Holiday and Severance Pay Act (BUAG). Can you give us a brief rundown of what’s happening?
**Paul Haberhauer**: Absolutely. Essentially, the amendments to the BUAG, effective since August 1st, have introduced new regulations that will significantly impact companies in our sector—particularly those involved in plumbing work related to metal roofing. We believe these changes could impose existential financial strains on our businesses.
**Editor**: You mentioned the potential for companies to be driven into financial difficulty. Could you explain that a bit further?
**Paul Haberhauer**: Sure. The retroactive application of certain provisions, like requiring an additional week of vacation after 20 years of service instead of 25, affects prior periods when companies couldn’t anticipate these costs. We’ve not had time to prepare financially for these changes, which is simply unreasonable.
**Editor**: It seems that legal opinions are playing a significant role in this debate. Could you touch on the legal backing for your arguments?
**Paul Haberhauer**: Yes, we commissioned a legal opinion from constitutional lawyer Daniel Ennöckl. His analysis supports our view that not all plumbing company activities should be considered under BUAG. We argue that many of these provisions are unconstitutional and that they violate the protection of trust for businesses that rely on a stable regulatory environment.
**Editor**: There’s been some criticism directed at the Chamber of Commerce as well. Can you elaborate on that?
**Paul Haberhauer**: The IG Spengler feels that the Chamber of Commerce has failed to represent our interests adequately. They’ve negotiated an industry solution with BUAK without full transparency about the consequences of these amendments, thus leaving many companies vulnerable to significant additional costs.
**Editor**: What steps are you taking in response to these changes?
**Paul Haberhauer**: We are preparing to take action at the Constitutional Court. We believe the transitional provisions introduced are not only burdensome but also unfair, as they place companies in a precarious position without adequate time to adapt.
**Editor**: how do you see this situation resolving?
**Paul Haberhauer**: Our hope is to establish a better framework that truly considers the realities of the industry. If we can negotiate a fairer solution with the authorities and social partners, it could help mitigate the negative financial impacts on smaller businesses while still complying with necessary labor protections.
**Editor**: Thank you, Paul, for sharing your insights on this critical issue. It will be interesting to see how this situation develops in the coming months.
**Paul Haberhauer**: Thank you for having me. It’s vital that industry voices are heard in this discussion.
