Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86740 Case Number: LCR10789 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SECURITY WARDENS LTD - and - MPGWU |
Claims on behalf of approximately 50 workers under the 26th Wage Round.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's offer, insofar as it complies
with the terms of the Registered Agreement, should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86740 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10789
CC861237 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10789
Parties: SECURITY WARDENS LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of approximately 50 workers under the 26th
Wage Round.
Background:
2. Following the expiry of the 25th Round agreement on 31st May,
1986, the Union, on behalf of its members, served the following
26th round claims on the Company:-
- 10% across the board increase for a 12 month period,
- a review of unsocial hours payments,
- the introduction of compassionate leave,
- the introduction of sick pay and pension plan,
- the introduction of cleaning allowance (for uniforms),
- the introduction of travel allowance,
- increase in holiday entitlements,
The Company responded by making the following offer:-
- a 4.7% increase,
- the introduction of compassionate leave,
- an increase in holiday entitlements from 19 days to 20
days per annum,
- the agreement to terminate on 30th November, 1987,
This offer was rejected by the Union and the matter was referred
to the conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 22nd July. At
a Conciliation Conference held on 11th September, 1986, the
Company revised its offer as follows:
- 15 month agreement,
- time and .50 for overtime after 48 rather than 52 hours,
- a further 2% in June, 1987,
This was not acceptable to the Union and the matter was referred
on 15th September, 1986, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 13th October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company's offer is in line with the terms of a
registered agreement between the Union and a group of
security companies. It would therefore seem that the
Company are willing to abide by the terms of this
registered agreement, despite the fact that they have
not done so in the recent past (details supplied). It
seems that the Company are seeking the best of both
worlds by refusing to pay the rate of pay pertaining
within this agreement when it suits them and on the
other hand trying to enforce the registered agreement
rates when it suits (details supplied).
(ii) The workers' rates of pay fall far short of the average
industrial rate. Their take home pay would not even
compare with Social Welfare payments.
(iii) Th
e current rates of pay for unsocial hours (details
supplied to the Court) have been in operation since 1984
and have not been increased since. A system for the
adjustment of these rates for future wage rounds should
be introduced.
(iv) The Union's claim for compassionate leave has been
conceded by the Company. The Union is willing to defer
the claim for the introduction of a sick pay/pension
plan to a future date.
(v) The workers are supplied with uniforms. The upkeep and
cleaning of the uniforms is the responsibility of the
workers. Employees can be dismissed if they do not keep
up a certain standard of appearance. The cost of upkeep
and cleaning is placing an extra financial burden on the
workers which they cannot afford to pay.
(vi) It is necessary for the workers to travel two bus
journeys to get to their place of employment, which is
made much worse at weekends because of the
unavailability of public transport. For security
reasons the Company's preference would be to place these
men as far away from home as possible. The idea behind
this would be that familiarity would not be welcome. A
travel allowance is therefore needed.
(vii)The Union accepts the Company's offer to increase annual
leave entitlements by one day.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company is losing contracts by paying the national
minimum rate to its employees. Customers are going to
competitors who pay lower rates and consequently can
afford lower charges (details supplied).
(b) Given the current economic forecasts the Company cannot
envisage its clients allowing increases in charges of
more than 3 to 4 percent for 1987. The majority of the
Company's clients are determined to keep their costs
down during the current difficult trading times.
(c) The Company would wish to concede many of the Union's
claims if economic times were better.
(d) The Company must compete with many companies who do not
pay the national minimum rates.
(e) The Company's offer would result in an increased deficit
(details supplied) and would require an 8.86% increase
in turnover. The Company is privately owned therefore
deficits are run up at the personal risk of the
Directors. The Company is therefore not able to go any
further and failing agreement will have to close its
static guard division entirely.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's offer, insofar as it complies
with the terms of the Registered Agreement, should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
12th November, 1986.
D.M./J.C.