Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93546 Case Number: AD93105 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GROUP 4 SECURITAS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST214/93 concerning payment for static stand-in duties.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties to this
case upholds the Company's appeal. In doing so it has reached the
conclusion that no agreement covering the circumstances of this
case exists. However, the Court believes that the overlap between
the job description of static guards and mobile patrol guards will
cause confusion in similar circumstances at a future date and
believes that the parties should meet as soon as possible to agree
a mechanism which will remove any ambiguity regarding the scope of
duties carried out by static guards and mobile patrol guards.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93546 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GROUP 4 SECURITAS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST214/93 concerning payment for static stand-in
duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to March 1992, Group 4 Securitas provided a mobile
patrol beat service to a client which involved unscheduled visits
to the client's premises. In March, 1992, discussions took place
concerning the extention of the service to provide cover during
the opening-up and locking-up period. To provide this service the
hours of the mobile patrol guards were extended.
In July, 1993, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the three
workers concerned for a stand-in payment for static duties
performed by them in the period 1992/1993. The Union claims that
the Company is in breach of the "static stand-in payments"
agreement. The Company rejected the claim.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. On 18th August,1993 the Rights Commissioner
recommended as follows:
"In the special circumstances involved, including the loss of 60%
of the contract involved, the long retroactive period involved and
the alleged "gain" by the employer I recommend that #1,000 be
split in equal shares between the claimants. I wish it to be
clearly understood by the Union members concerned that this
Recommendation is made without prejudice to the existing Agreement
covering "stand in payments" and is solely in recognition of the
unique circumstances on this particular site and for their
continuing co-operation in these difficult trading times for the
Company. I am also making this Recommendation in the usual
context of acceptance by the Company. However in the event of an
appeal, the Union should feel free to point out to the Labour
Court the basis upon which their claim was diluted by me on the
above account."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the labour court on 22nd september, 1993. The Court
heard the appeal on 4th November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) The client's requirement that the workers concerned
locate themselves in the reception area and monitor
staff entering and leaving the premises constitutes
static guard duty. This was reinforced by the fact that
the guards remained in the reception area until they
were replaced by senior members of the client's staff.
(2) This static duty was in addition to the workers normal
beat duties and constituted additional work for which
the "static stand-in payment" was agreed.
(3) It is well established custom and practice that guards
on beat duty are paid for standing in for static duties
and this has been acknowledged by management.
(4) The co-operation of the workers concerned in performing
these extra duties has resulted in substantial savings
to the Company and this has been acknowledged by the
Rights Commissioner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. (1) "Stand-in payments" are only made in relation to static
customers where absences by the regular static personnel
are covered by beat personnel.
(2) The Rights Commissioner failed to address the issue put
before him in relation to the Union's claim that the
Company were in breach of the "stand-in payments
agreement".
(3) The Rights Commissioners decided to uphold the
agreement. In the circumstances no payment is
justified.
(4) The Rights Commissioner was influenced by the Union's
argument that the Company was avoiding payment of the
minimum 4 hour shift which relates to static guards.
(5) A similar service is provided to clients on an ongoing
basis where beatmen are required to spend significant
periods of time on the premises of clients as part of
the overall service, without payment or claim for
"stand-in payments".
(6) The workers concerned are in receipt of an allowance
(#13.50 per week) in recognition of the fact that their
duties relate to a number of clients simultaneously.
Static guards service only one client at a time.
(7) The additional service to the particular client ceased
in May, 1993. The Company also lost 60% of its original
contract with the client at that time.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties to this
case upholds the Company's appeal. In doing so it has reached the
conclusion that no agreement covering the circumstances of this
case exists. However, the Court believes that the overlap between
the job description of static guards and mobile patrol guards will
cause confusion in similar circumstances at a future date and
believes that the parties should meet as soon as possible to agree
a mechanism which will remove any ambiguity regarding the scope of
duties carried out by static guards and mobile patrol guards.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th December, 1993 Tom McGrath
F.B./A.L. ---------------
Deputy Chairman