Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92207 Case Number: LCR13675 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SECURICOR IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the implementation of a one hour reduction in the working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It accepts the Company's contention that by the very nature of the
work done the impact of the reduction in hours will be greater
than in many other sectors of trade and industry. Furthermore, it
is the Court's view that the Company's counter proposals, in the
main come within the criteria set out in the relevant clause of
the P.N.R.
It would seem that the major difficulty with the Company proposals
is that unavoidably they bear with differing consequences on
different groups of staff. This of course is inherently unfair as
between the staff themselves but can of course be dealt with by
the parties negotiating compensation for excessive losses
sustained by the staff most concerned, or other safeguards for the
position of existing staff.
Taking these factors into account, and taking into consideration
the proposal which appears to meet most directly the P.N.R.'s
criteria on the most efficient use of resources the Court
recommends that the Company's proposal for the integration of the
C.I.T. and A.T.M. service, and the Company's proposal for the use
of smoke boxes be accepted by the Union and that the reduction of
hours be effected in the manner set out in the Company's document
of 5th September, 1991 with effect from 1st March, 1992.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92207 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13675
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SECURICOR IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the implementation of a one hour
reduction in the working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company honoured the payment of the three phases of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) with the last phase being
applied on 1st January, 1991. During 1990 the Union met the
Company to discuss the implementation of a reduced working week.
The Company proposed the setting up of a working group to make
recommendations on the matter. The group was to consist of 3
members of management, 3 members of staff and an independent
chairman. This proposal was rejected by the Union. The Company
subsequently engaged the services of the Irish Productivity Centre
(I.P.C.) and, on foot of the report which it received from the
I.P.C., compiled a new set of proposals. The proposals (Appendix
1) were presented to the Union at a meeting on 5th September,
1990. The Union rejected the proposals and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission on 5th September, 1991. Conciliation conferences were
held on 29th November, 1991 and 9th March, 1992 at which agreement
was not reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on
7th April, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th April,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Acceptance of the Company's proposals would result in a
situation wherein the workers would be financially
disadvantaged. Such a situation would be totally unacceptable
to the workers. Moreover, the Union is not satisfied that the
Company's proposals are made in the spirit intended under the
P.N.R. It could not have been intended that the workers
should be penalised for the implementation of a shorter
working week under the P.N.R.
2. As the majority of workers concerned work shift, the most
practical method of implementation of the reduced working week
and the one preferred by the workers concerned would be that
of additional annual leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The implementation of a reduced working week will mean an
increase in the region of 3-3.50% on the cost of the payroll.
This cost cannot be shouldered by the customer as it would
affect the Company's competitiveness. The nature of the work
leaves the market open for operators in the black economy who
often pay less than the Registered Employment Agreement rate
applicable to the industry. In order to maintain contracts
and ensure employment, it is imperative that the Union make
concessions as outlined in the Company's proposals.
2. It is very difficult for the security industry to
introduce a 1 hour reduction in the working week without the
cost rising. The Company cannot afford to introduce a reduced
working week if there are no concessions from the Union. The
spirit of the P.N.R. is not that the Company should suffer.
Its intention is to improve workers' conditions but also to
help competitiveness.
3. The Company has looked into the possibility of loss of
earnings and has indicated its willingness to introduce the
proposals on a phased arrangement basis. The Company has, at
all times, shown flexibility throughout negotiations but has
been faced with total rejection by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It accepts the Company's contention that by the very nature of the
work done the impact of the reduction in hours will be greater
than in many other sectors of trade and industry. Furthermore, it
is the Court's view that the Company's counter proposals, in the
main come within the criteria set out in the relevant clause of
the P.N.R.
It would seem that the major difficulty with the Company proposals
is that unavoidably they bear with differing consequences on
different groups of staff. This of course is inherently unfair as
between the staff themselves but can of course be dealt with by
the parties negotiating compensation for excessive losses
sustained by the staff most concerned, or other safeguards for the
position of existing staff.
Taking these factors into account, and taking into consideration
the proposal which appears to meet most directly the P.N.R.'s
criteria on the most efficient use of resources the Court
recommends that the Company's proposal for the integration of the
C.I.T. and A.T.M. service, and the Company's proposal for the use
of smoke boxes be accepted by the Union and that the reduction of
hours be effected in the manner set out in the Company's document
of 5th September, 1991 with effect from 1st March, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
4th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.
APPENDIX 1.
5th September, 1991
REDUCTION IN WEEKLY WORKING HOURS
FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING 40 HOURS OR MORE
_________________________________
Company Proposals
Method of Implementation
PATROLS
Hours to be given within roster cycle
C.I.T./A.T.M.'s
One hour per week
STATICS
Additional annual leave i.e. forty eight hours to be
taken on individual shift basis to a maximum of forty
eight hours. All other annual leave to be taken on a
full week basis.
OFFICERS AND CLERICAL
A reduced working week by one hour where appropriate.
To introduce the one hour reduction, the following is
required:
GENERAL
Agreement on the introduction of any new technology
Renegotiation of bank holiday payments
Payment by credit transfer monthly
Acceptance of local variations on the above methods of
implementation.
C.I.T./A.T.M.'s
Roster on a four/five over seven day basis
The use of part-time staff
Smoke boxes
Cease Dublin practice of double payments for lunch
breaks
Greater integration of C.I.T. and A.T.M. service
Overtime after forty four hours for staff doing relief
C.I.T. work
STATICS
Maintain hourly rate at one fortieth
Agreement to apply registered agreement rates for new
contracts where appropriate
Proposed implementation date: 1 March 1992