Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87639 Case Number: LCR11445 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SECURICOR LTD - and - FUE;ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of mobile patrolmen, concerning a reduction in overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the terms of LCR10812 does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87639 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11445
CC87989 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11445
PARTIES: SECURICOR IRELAND LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO. 15 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of mobile patrolmen, concerning a reduction
in overtime.
Background:
2. In November, 1986, the Labour Court issued a recommendation
concerning a rationalisation proposal from the Company (LCR10812
refers). This recommendation stated inter alia that "the Company
and the Union should actively co-operate in the reduction of
unnecessary overtime working". On this basis the Company is now
proposing to discontinue a practice which has been in existence
for some years whereby patrolmen stood in, on an overtime basis,
for their colleagues who were on annual leave. Instead, it
intends employing relief men at flat rate. This was rejected by
the Union which claimed either the retention of the existing,
system or compensation at 2.50 times the annual loss. No agreement
could be reached at local level and on the 18th June, 1987, the
issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No progress was made at a conciliation conference held on
the 24th July and on the 24th August the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 10th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) For the past 19 years, patrolmen have deputised for
each other when one goes on holidays and are paid
overtime rates on these occasions. Therefore, these
workers have got used to these earnings and depend on
this additional money each year for their domestic
circumstances.
(b) The claimants depend a lot on these additional
earnings. Their basic rate is #150.53 for a forty
hour week and they are not paid overtime rates for
working on week-ends. If they work on Sunday they are
paid #5.00 extra and as they work mainly at night they
are paid #11.00 per week unsocial hours payment. Both
these payments were recommended by the Labour Court
towards the end of 1981 and they have not been
increased since that time. The Union contends that
their value has been completely eroded.
(c) Management maintain that under LCR10812 it has the
right to make these changes but the Union is of the
view that these changes can only take place after
consultation and agreement.
(d) The claimants constitute one of the smallest groups in
the Company and therefore, the overall savings to the
Company would be minimal. In addition, LCR10812 did
not recommend a wage increase which in essence gives
the claimants a fourteen month pay pause without any
increase in wages.
(e) The workers concerned work at night and are regularly
called out to investigate reports of a break-ins or of
alarms being activated. There is no additional
payment given to them when such incidents occur.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Due to the lack of competitiveness of the patrol
service, the Company has been forced to reduce the
number of patrolmen in the Dublin area and to
re-deploy the patrolmen. The Company now intends to
use these men in providing relief cover on patrols,
thereby reducing unnecessary overtime costs. In these
measures, the Company expects the full, on-going and
active co-operation of the Union, in line with
LCR10812.
(b) Given the present critical financial state of the
Company in general and the uncompetitive position of
patrols in particular, Management is confident that
these measures, amongst others, will contribute to
restoring the competitive position of the patrols and
increase employment in same.
/.....
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the terms of LCR10812 does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th October, 1987 John M. Horgan
D.H./P.W. Chairman