Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86966 Case Number: LCR10975 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GROUP 4 SECURITY - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 200 static guards, patrol drivers and controllers, in respect of the 26th wage round, for:- (a) a #20 per week increase in basic pay rates, (b) increase of #3 per week in boot and shirt allowance, (c) parity of travel allowance between workers in Dublin and Cork, (d) parity of the guaranteed working week between workers in Dublin and Cork, (e) calculation of holiday pay.
Recommendation:
20. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends a 26th round wage increase of #5 for twelve
months effective from 1st September, 1986. In regard to the claim
in relation to the travel allowance for Dublin employees, the
Court is of the view that there are certain inequities in the
present system which need to be addressed. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties should discuss this question as soon
as possible with a view to agreeing a more equitable system.
In regard to the claim for the inclusion of overtime in holiday
pay, the Court recommends that regular rostered overtime should be
included in holiday pay with effect from the commencement of the
27th Round and as part of that Round. The Court does not
recommend concession of the other claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86966 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10975
CC861823 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10975
PARTIES: GROUP 4 SECURITAS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 200 static guards, patrol
drivers and controllers, in respect of the 26th wage round, for:-
(a) a #20 per week increase in basic pay rates,
(b) increase of #3 per week in boot and shirt allowance,
(c) parity of travel allowance between workers in Dublin and
Cork,
(d) parity of the guaranteed working week between workers in
Dublin and Cork,
(e) calculation of holiday pay.
General background:
2. The Company is part of the security industry specialising in
manned services. The Company's headquarters are in Dublin but it
also operates in a number of locations throughout the country.
The majority of employees in the Company operate in the area of
static guarding with a smaller number operating as mobile patrols
and controllers.
3. The 25th round wage agreement expired in the Company on 31st
August, 1986. The Union, on behalf of its members employed in the
Company's Dublin headquarters and other locations, served the
above claims on the Company in respect of the 26th wage round,
effective from 1st September, 1986. In the course of the
discussions at local level the Company made an offer on claim (a)
and rejected the other claims. This was unacceptable to the Union
and as no agreement could be reached the matters were referred, on
7th November, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Following a conciliation conference on 2nd December, 1986,
which failed to resolve the dispute, the claims were referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 16th January, 1987.
Claim (a) - a #20 per week increase in basic pay rates
Background:
4. The current basic rates of pay of the workers concerned,
inclusive of the terms of the 25th wage round, is #126.15 x (6) -
#131.65 per 40 hour week.
The Union, on behalf of these workers, served a claim on the
Company for a #20 per week increase in these rates, in respect of
the 26th wage round, effective from 1st September, 1986 for 12
months. The Company rejected the claim but in the course of
negotiations with the Union at local level offered a #4 per week
increase to apply to all basic rates with effect from the 1st
September, 1986, for 12 months. The offer was rejected by the
Union.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) The increase sought by the Union in respect of the
workers concerned is in line with the guidelines laid
down by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to seek
such increases under the current pay round which would
maintain the living standards of workers.
(ii) Having regard to the penal taxation system to which
gross pay is subjected and the effects of the recent
removal of food subsidies and the increases in
mortgages on disposable income, the level of increase
sought by the Union is justified.
(iii) The Company's offer of a #4 per week increase on the
basic rates is unrealistic. In this regard, the
Company has established a reputation of being one of
the best employers in the industry and it is,
therefore, necessary that it maintain a high level of
wages in order to encourage other low paying companies
in the industry to bring their wages up to the level
of that of the Company.
(iv) The job carried out by the workers concerned is a high
risk employment, where robberies, break-ins and
assaults on security personnel are a regular
occurrence. In these circumstances, it is necessary
that they be rewarded by the payment to them of
realistic wage rates.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) The Company pays higher rates of pay and its workers
have better conditions of employment than any other
company operating in the manned security industry.
Its major competitor pays rates and has conditions of
employment which in cost terms, are approximately 4%
less expensive than those of the Company. The
Company's offer and a 14 month pay pause in the
competitor company, would result in the Company costs
being approximately 7% more expensive than its
principal rival. In a highly price sensitive market,
a cost differential of this magnitude is undesirable.
(b) Given the competitive nature of the industry the
Company has experienced difficulty with its charge-out
rates and these have had to be reduced when reviewing
contracts with client companies. It is impossible
therefore, for the Company to withstand cost increases
in excess of the increase in income which it can
expect, which concession of this claim would entail.
(c) The cost of the Company's settlements over the past
two wage rounds has been in excess of that incurred by
other security firms.
(d) Acceptance of the Company's offer will maintain the
workers' living standards as the level of increase
offered is in line with the current level of inflation
and that predicted for 1987.
Claim (b) - increase of #3 per week in boot and shirt allowance
Background:
8. At present the workers concerned are paid a boot and shirt
allowance of #2 per week. The Union, on behalf of these workers,
served a claim on the Company to have the allowance increased to
#5 per week. The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
9. (i) The current level of the allowance is inadequate
having regard to the costs to the workers of providing
the necessary boots and shirts.
(ii) The Company is one of the largest and best known
companies in the industry with a very high public
profile. Accordingly, it insists that its employees
maintain a good appearance at all times. In order
that the required high standard be maintained a
reasonable boot and shirt allowance should be paid.
Company's arguments:
10. (a) The allowance in question, which is provided to
security staff for the provision of footwear, has been
increased from #1 to #2 in the recent past. This
payment is made free of tax with the approval of the
Revenue Commissioners who have indicated that this is
the maximum weekly level which they will accept as
being exempt from tax.
(b) As the allowance equates to #104 nett per year it is
adequate compensation for costs incurred by the
workers in providing footwear. When the allowance was
first introduced it was in respect of costs incurred
in the provision of footwear and shirts for use at
work. Under the last pay round the Company agreed to
issue two shirts free per year to each worker.
Consequently, the cost incurred by the workers was
further reduced by this concession.
Claim (c) - parity of travel allowance
Background:
11. In Cork the Company pays workers a travel allowance of #1.35
per shift whereas in Dublin workers are paid a mileage allowance.
The Union served a claim on the Company for the extension of the
Cork travel allowance system to Dublin workers. The Company
rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
12. (i) The anomaly which exists between Dublin and Cork in
the method of paying travel allowance is a contentious
issue and failure to resolve it could have an adverse
affect on future good industrial relations in the
Company. While the matter has already been the
subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation
(Recommendation No. 10398 refers) the workers are
determined to eliminate this anomaly.
(ii) In Cork the workers are paid a travel allowance of
#1.35 per shift while in Dublin a complex system based
on mileage and places of assignments operates which
gives rise to disagreements. The straight forward
system which operates in Cork is the most appropriate
in the circumstances and should be also applied to
Dublin workers.
Company's argument:
13. The current system operated by the Company in Dublin
provides a fair and adequate framework to compensate
workers for costs incurred in fulfilling the Company's
requirements of reporting for duty as directed. The
particular allowance applies in Cork because
assignments in that region cover a larger area. In
the circumstances, the system operated by the Company
is fair and equitable.
Claim (d) - guaranteed working week
Background:
14. At present the Company's static guards in Cork receive a
guaranteed week of 42 hours (inclusive of 2 hours at overtime
rates) while in Dublin the guaranteed minimum hours per week is 45
(inclusive of 5 hours at overtime rates) for these workers. The
Union served a claim on the Company for the guaranteed working
week in Dublin to apply in Cork. The company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
15. (i) No valid reasons exist why Cork workers should not
have the same guaranteed working week as their
counterparts in Dublin. Therefore, the anomaly which
exists in this respect should be ended by the
concession of this claim.
(ii) The existence of the guaranteed working week is not a
concession given by the Company as the overtime hours
provided for are worked both in Dublin and Cork.
Company's arguments:
16. (a) The guarantee of a minimum number of hours overtime is
unique in the security industry and was agreed to by
the Company at negotiations concerning the closure of
its cash-in-transit operation when workers providing
that service were transferred into the static guard
and patrol services. Therefore, these guarantees were
instituted for special circumstances at a particular
time and no valid reasons now exist for their
extention.
(b) Within the security industry, the trend in overtime
hours is towards a reduction rather than an increase
in hours worked. Therefore, concession of this claim
would be against this trend.
Claim (e) - calculation of holiday pay
Background:
17. Overtime is worked on a regular basis in the Company but this
is not considered in the calculation of holiday pay. The Union,
on behalf of the workers concerned, served a claim on the Company
for the inclusion of average overtime in holiday pay. The Company
rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
18. (i) Overtime working is essential in the Company and is
worked by all employees on a regular basis throughout
the year. It is unfair therefore, to expect workers
to take a drop in their earnings during the holiday
period at a time when finances are most needed.
(ii) Where overtime payment is an established feature of
weekly earnings it is included in the calculation of
holiday pay in most good employments. This has been
recognised by the Court and in a number of cases it
has recommended accordingly.
Company's argument:
19. The minimum annual holiday entitlement in the Company
is 20 days rising to 27 days after 5 years' service.
This entitlement is significantly ahead of that
provided in other companies. Therefore, there is no
justification for increasing the cost of the holidays
provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
20. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends a 26th round wage increase of #5 for twelve
months effective from 1st September, 1986. In regard to the claim
in relation to the travel allowance for Dublin employees, the
Court is of the view that there are certain inequities in the
present system which need to be addressed. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties should discuss this question as soon
as possible with a view to agreeing a more equitable system.
In regard to the claim for the inclusion of overtime in holiday
pay, the Court recommends that regular rostered overtime should be
included in holiday pay with effect from the commencement of the
27th Round and as part of that Round. The Court does not
recommend concession of the other claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th February, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman