Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92579 Case Number: LCR13857 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SECRO SECURITY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the pay and conditions of workers.
Recommendation:
The Court considered all of the arguments, written and verbal made
by the parties. The court finds that the terms and conditions of
employment were freely agreed between the parties and consequently
should not be unilaterally amended.
The Court notes that the current costs are uneconomic and result
in a loss of money by the Company. The Court finds it difficult
to accept that the Company were unaware of the cost implications
of the contract they were undertaking. It is clear to the Court
that continuing the present situation can only result in the
Company making an uncompetitive tender for the contract with a
subsequent loss of employment. In these circumstances the Court
makes the following recommendations.
1. Rate of pay #4.87 per hour (inclusive of 2nd phase of PESP)
3rd phase to be implemented on 1 October, 1992.
2. Meal allowance of #17.50 per week
3. Annual leave of 19 days (calculated as 8 hours per day) be
implemented in year 1993.
4. Working hours to be 39 hours per 5 day week based over 7
days.
5. Overtime to be paid for all hours in excess of 39 hours. The
premium to be time and one half for the first five hours and
double time thereafter.
6. All hours worked on a public holiday to be paid at the rate
of double time (2T) in addition to eight hours pay or eight
hours paid time off.
That the present terms and conditions of employment be bought out
by the payment, 12 months after the introduction of the above
terms and conditions, of a lump sum equivalent to the shortfall
accrued during the 12 month period.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92579 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13857
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SECRO SECURITY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS (FIE))
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the pay and conditions of workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Secro Security is a very small, family run, security
company in Wexford. It provides weekend security in a number
of factories in Wexford and a 24 hour service for Iarnrod
Eireann at Rosslare Harbour. The contract for Rosslare
Harbour was agreed in February, 1992 for an initial 6 week
period. The Company recruited 3 men specifically for this
contract and agreed to pay them #210 per week net for a 48
hour week (this was to include #6 per day travel allowance
and tax to be paid by the Company).
2. In April, 1992 the Company informed the Union that it
would have to regularise rates of pay and conditions in order
for it to be able to tender realistically for the Rosslare
Contract. It pointed out that it could not continue to pay
#210 net per week because it was already losing money on the
contract. They offered the Union access to their accounts to
substantiate this claim. On 15th May, 1992 S.I.P.T.U.
submitted a claim on the Company for wages and conditions of
employment. A meeting took place on 30th June, 1992 between
both sides to discuss the claim. The Company put forward its
own proposals which the Union rejected as it involved a
reduction in the net rate of pay and the withdrawal of the
travel allowance (#42 for working a 6 day roster). It was
agreed that the whole issue be referred to the Labour
Relations Commission.
3. A conciliation conference took place on 27th August,
1992 and resumed on 7th September, 1992. The conciliation
officer put a set of proposals to both sides but these were
rejected by the Union.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on 22nd September, 1992 and the
Labour Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on 25th
September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company proposed a reduction in pay and the
withdrawal of the travel allowance. The Union rejected this
as it was a massive reduction in earnings.
2. The Company made proposals at a conciliation conference
which involved losses of #50 per week per person. The Union
could not accept a cut of #50 per week as this would
effectively be terminating the employment of their members
due to the radical and fundamental change in pay.
3. The workers have a basic pay rate of #210 net per week
which was freely offered and agreed. The Company employed a
fourth man (part-time) and paid him the daily equivalent of
#210 net, despite having proposed a reduction for the other
three workers.
4. The Union are prepared to agree a pay structure, with
agreed conditions which would approximately equal this amount
(#210), with any shortfall being negotiated.
5. The Union are seeking to have the pay rate of the
workers concerned retained by 'red circling' and agree that
the proposals, as offered at conciliation, would be
acceptable for future employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, by paying a weekly rate of #210 net, is
uncompetitive and is losing substantially on the Rosslare
contract.
2 The Union has shown no effort to resolve the difficulty,
despite having been repeatedly told that Secro would have to
pull out of Rosslare because of its losses.
3. The Company is still not in a position to tender
realistically for this contract, despite a recent invitation
by Iarnrod Eireann for a tender.
4. Most other security companies pay the REA rate of #3.56
per hour and it is against these firms that the Company must
compete.
5. The Company's offer of allowing its accounts to be
inspected by the Union indicated that its case was
verifiable. The Union was not prepared at any stage to
accept this.
6. The proposals which emerged at the conciliation
conference on 5th September, 1992 represented a substantial
package and are far in excess of REA rates.
7. The Company cannot and will not continue to pay present
rates indefinitely.
8. The Company's involvement in Rosslare has been
loss-making primarily because of the unreasonableness of the
union and its failure to recognise that it is impossible in
this highly competitive industry to pay the rates enjoyed by
its members.
9. The proposals which emerged at the conciliation
conference on 5th September 1992 represent the best and final
offer which can be made.
10. Accounts are available for Court's inspection.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered all of the arguments, written and verbal made
by the parties. The court finds that the terms and conditions of
employment were freely agreed between the parties and consequently
should not be unilaterally amended.
The Court notes that the current costs are uneconomic and result
in a loss of money by the Company. The Court finds it difficult
to accept that the Company were unaware of the cost implications
of the contract they were undertaking. It is clear to the Court
that continuing the present situation can only result in the
Company making an uncompetitive tender for the contract with a
subsequent loss of employment. In these circumstances the Court
makes the following recommendations.
1. Rate of pay #4.87 per hour (inclusive of 2nd phase of PESP)
3rd phase to be implemented on 1 October, 1992.
2. Meal allowance of #17.50 per week
3. Annual leave of 19 days (calculated as 8 hours per day) be
implemented in year 1993.
4. Working hours to be 39 hours per 5 day week based over 7
days.
5. Overtime to be paid for all hours in excess of 39 hours. The
premium to be time and one half for the first five hours and
double time thereafter.
6. All hours worked on a public holiday to be paid at the rate
of double time (2T) in addition to eight hours pay or eight
hours paid time off.
That the present terms and conditions of employment be bought out
by the payment, 12 months after the introduction of the above
terms and conditions, of a lump sum equivalent to the shortfall
accrued during the 12 month period.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November, 1992 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.