Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90190 Case Number: LCR12908 Section / Act: S67 Parties: J LYONS AND COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the rate of overtime payment for three security men.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that historically the employment conditions of
internal security men were acceptable to the workers because they
were better, in respect of wage rates, earnings, tenure and
peripheral terms than those applying in the security industry from
which they came. The Company maintains that it was in this
context that the rate of pay was established and that over-time
was worked at flat rate.
Circumstances have changed significantly in the mean time and the
Court does not consider the requirement to work an average of 56
hours per week at flat-rates sustainable to-day.
In not upholding the claim as made by the Union, the Court is of
the view that neither side has addressed the possibility of an
equitable and practical compromise which would have regard to all
facts of the case and it recommends that both sides have further
direct negotiations to seek a solution. If agreement is not
achieved by the end of July, the matter may be referred back to
the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90190 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12908
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: J LYONS AND COMPANY
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employees)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the rate of overtime payment for
three security men.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three men concerned are employed on a full-time basis as
security/watchmen by the Company. Their service ranges from two
to nine years. The security men cover the Company's premises
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, averaging fifty-six
hours duty each per week. For this duty they are paid a flat rate
of #169.10, which is the equivalent to Grade 1 of the Company's
factory rate. Factory workers in the Company are paid the normal
industrial overtime rates for hours worked beyond the agreed forty
hours per week. The Union, on 1st December, 1989, claimed that
the security men should also be paid at agreed premium rates for
all hours worked in excess of forty hour per week. The Union
proposed that since the security men work unusual shift patterns
the fairest system should be that the first forty hours be paid at
flat time, the next eight hours at time and a half and all further
hours be paid at double time. Public holidays should be paid at
treble time. The Company rejected the Union's claim and on 20th
December, 1989, the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 23rd February, 1990, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th April, 1990, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 24th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The security men are paid in accordance with the rates
agreed by the Company and Union for factory workers, however,
they do not receive the overtime rates enjoyed by the factory
workers.
2. The Company has not fulfilled its commitment to overtime
payments as agreed and signed in the security mens contracts
of employment. The contracts state that:-
"Payment for overtime work ..... are governed by the
current agreement between the Company and the
I.T.G.W.U.".
3. The three security men provide round the clock cover
over seven days a week. This type of duty would normally
involve four workers working forty-two and a half hours each,
for which they are paid forty hours at flat time plus two and
a half hours overtime and a shift premium of twenty-five
percent plus. The security men here - concerned are not
claiming shift premium.
4. The Union believes that the claim is not in breach of
Clause 3 of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) as
the Company is in breach of the contracts of employment which
were agreed and signed prior to the introduction of the P.N.R.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1981, the Company decided to dispense with contract
security and employ its own security men. The Company agreed
to engaged its own security provided that a fixed rate for all
hours worked could be arranged. It was arranged that three
security men would provided twenty four hour cover over seven
days per week. This arrangement has been in operation since
1981 and all security men have agreed, operated and benefitted
from this system. The security mens earnings range from
#13,290 to #14,433.
2. To concede the Union's claim would lead to a substantial
increase in overtime costs to the Company. In those
circumstances the Company would have no choice but to employ
another security man. This would lead to a reduction in the
earnings of the existing security men. It is in the interests
of both parties to retain the current system.
3. The Company believes that as this is a cost increasing
claim it is in breach of the P.N.R. and should not therefore
be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that historically the employment conditions of
internal security men were acceptable to the workers because they
were better, in respect of wage rates, earnings, tenure and
peripheral terms than those applying in the security industry from
which they came. The Company maintains that it was in this
context that the rate of pay was established and that over-time
was worked at flat rate.
Circumstances have changed significantly in the mean time and the
Court does not consider the requirement to work an average of 56
hours per week at flat-rates sustainable to-day.
In not upholding the claim as made by the Union, the Court is of
the view that neither side has addressed the possibility of an
equitable and practical compromise which would have regard to all
facts of the case and it recommends that both sides have further
direct negotiations to seek a solution. If agreement is not
achieved by the end of July, the matter may be referred back to
the Court for a definitive recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
11th June, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman