Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9159 Case Number: LCR13251 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.T.E. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (A) payment for meal breaks for security officers and (B) pay structure of senior security officers.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and
examined the evidence submitted in relation to both claims the
Court finds (a) that the pay structure for Senior Security
Officers is not out of line and (b) that there are no special
grounds which warrant recommending payment for meal breaks to
security officers.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9159 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13251
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: R.T.E.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (A) payment for meal breaks for security
officers and (B) pay structure of senior security officers.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Both claims were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 4th September, 1990. A conciliation conference
was held on 19th November, 1990. As no agreement was reached the
parties subsequently consented to a referral to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
18th February, 1990.
BACKGROUND:
3 1. Claim A - payment for meal breaks for security officers.
Security staff in R.T.E. have a liability to work 78 hours
per fortnight. The rostering of security officers is
governed by the 13 point roster which is an agreed set of
regulations covering shift work in R.T.E. In addition to
basic pay the officers are paid a roster duty allowance.
2. The roster pattern is 7 twelve hour shifts per
fortnight. The hours of duty are 6.30 to 18.30 and 18.30 to
6.30. This shift pattern has been in operation since 1983.
During their shifts the workers have 2 half hour unpaid meal
breaks. The Union lodged a claim for payment for these
breaks on the basis that the officers are required to remain
on site and on call during their breaks. R.T.E. rejected the
claim on the grounds that the situation prevailing was a
result of a request from the staff themselves and that no
other group of workers who work similar shifts are paid for
meal breaks.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The security officers are required to work 12/13 hour
shifts and receive 2 half hour meal breaks. These breaks are
flexible and only taken at a suitable time. When on lunch
break the officers may not leave the complex and must have
their radio turned on and be available for call.
2. No other grade in R.T.E. works through a lunch break
without being paid and no other grade is restricted to the
complex during their meal break. The special nature of
security is accepted but with ongoing cutbacks in staffing
levels the Company seem to take for granted the scheduling of
security officers for the entire period of their shift
regardless of the fact that they are unpaid for one hour.
R.T.E.'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The roster currently in operation in security was drawn
up following consultation with the staff. In fact to-date no
complaints have been made as regards the question of meal
breaks. Payment for meal breaks does not apply throughout
R.T.E. where staff are working similar rosters to those of
security officers. The granting of two half hour meal breaks
to the security officers is as a direct request from the
staff themselves.
2. The Union base their case for the payment of meal breaks
on their contention that they are constantly expected to
respond to emergencies when they arise during meal breaks.
However, the facts do not support this case. If an emergency
does arise staff are expected to respond irrespective of meal
breaks. In fact staff are aware that when such incidents do
arise a flexible attitude is adopted by line management
regarding meal breaks.
3. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive
effects.
Claim (B) - Pay structure of senior security officers
BACKGROUND:
6. The post of senior security officer was established in 1984
following negotiations with the Union. The agreement set out the
specific duties of the senior security officer and in recognition
of some extra duties which were being taken on the officers
received a pay increase and lump sum lead in payments. (Details
supplied to the Court). In July 1990 the Union lodged a claim for
an increase in the differential between security officer and
senior security officer on the basis that the current differential
of 5% is considerably less than that applying to other groups
within the organisation particularly that of senior telephonist
who enjoys a differential of 13%. The Company rejected the claim
on the grounds that the present pay scale was established
following agreement in 1984 and that there has been no changes in
duties or conditions which would warrant a review.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The duties of the senior security officer are not just
supervisory but include quite serious responsibility,
particularly involving decision making at night when no
senior managerial staff are present. Since the grade was
established in 1984 the duties have expanded to include
computer records and responsibility for security officer
duties previously carried out by the house services officer.
2. The 5% differential in no way reflects the
responsibility of the post. Other senior grades within the
Organisation enjoy much greater differentials (details
supplied to the Court). These differentials are at least
double the one applying for senior security officer. Taking
all things into account the Union sees it fair and reasonable
that the Company should enter into meaningful negotiations to
improve the differential up to those currently operating.
R.T.E.'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The nature of the work of the senior security officer is
that of a working supervisor with the responsibility for the
operation of the shift he leads. The agreement with the
Union which established the grade in 1984 clearly set out the
role and responsibilities to be undertaken by the senior
grade and the new salary scale for the post.
2. Since 1984 nothing has happened to change the functions
carried out be senior security officers which could justify
any move away from the agreed and accepted rate of pay for
the job. In fact many of the technological developments in
the area of security have helped to streamline the operation
of security in R.T.E.
3. It should be noted that within R.T.E. the security area
is unique in so far as numbers of permanent staff have
increased as opposed to all other areas where staff reduction
have taken place. Within the matrix of grades in the general
services area nothing has changed which could justify a
salary claim on behalf of senior security officers.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and
examined the evidence submitted in relation to both claims the
Court finds (a) that the pay structure for Senior Security
Officers is not out of line and (b) that there are no special
grounds which warrant recommending payment for meal breaks to
security officers.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th April, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman