Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9345 Case Number: LCR13955 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning an increase in pay for 3 security controllers.
Recommendation:
5. Having reviewed the terms and understandings of the P.E.S.P.,
the Court is satisfied that this case is subject to that
agreement. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union claims.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13955
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning an increase in pay for 3 security
controllers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 6,000 workers and has over 70 branches
nationwide. The Company operates a central security
monitoring station in Dublin for all its premises. There are
4 security controllers employed at the station, 3 of whom are
Union members. The station operates on a 24 hour basis, 7
days' a week. The controllers operate a 12 hour shift with
one controller per shift.
2. The 3 workers joined the Union in mid 1990. In early
1992, the Union forwarded a claim to the Company. Following
local discussions the claim was the subject of a Labour
Relations Commission, conciliation conference, on 5th August,
1992. The claim was as follows:
(a) pay rate incorporating shift and bank holiday
payments,
(b) meal allowance,
(c) travel allowance.
3. The Company was not prepared to concede the claim and it
was referred to the Labour Court on 13th January, 1993 in
accordance with 26(1) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990 for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 5th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The duties of the workers are specialised and onerous and
it is difficult to draw a comparison with other employments.
The workers are paid an all inclusive rate incorporating their
basic, shift rate and bank holiday payments (details
supplied). The Union is prepared to accept the basic rate
provided a more realistic approach is taken by the Company to
the other components of the salary.
2. The shift rate of #3,174 per annum (pre 2nd phase of the
P.E.S.P.) bears no relationship to normal recognition of
continuous 4 cycle shift working. The industrial average is
time plus 1/3 and higher. The payment must recognise the
anti-social nature of the work. At present the workers
receive #300 per annum for bank holiday working. The workers
must work an average of 4 bank holiday shifts per annum. The
Union is seeking the standard payment of treble time for bank
holiday working.
3. Two of the workers who were promoted from store detective
retained a monthly travel allowance. For a variety of reasons
one of the controllers has ceased to enjoy this payment, while
the remaining 2 were recruited externally and never enjoyed
the payment. The rate is a small amount of money and the
Union is seeking that it be extended to all workers.
4. Workers on the late shift can find it difficult to
prepare a hot meal (details supplied) and this could affect
their ability to respond to an emergency (details supplied).
The Union is seeking either a meal allowance or a meal
arrangement for workers on the late shift.
5. The Company is newly organised and the workers have never
had negotiations carried out on their behalf in relation to
any of the matters before the Court. In these circumstances,
the claim is not precluded under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The Company is engaged in the very competitive retail grocery
trade and to survive it must be competitive in all areas of
its operations. The workers are paid attractive rates of pay
which compare more than favourably with their counterparts in
the security industry (details supplied). The Company's main
competitors operate contract security monitoring services. If
the Company were to contract out its security services it
would cost approximately 30% of the current cost of the 4
controllers. The claims as presented are in breach of the
cost stabilisation clauses of the P.E.S.P.
2. The workers are paid an all-inclusive salary which
incorporates shift and bank holiday payments. In 1989 by way
of settlement of a claim for a bank holiday payment, the
workers accepted in writing that their salary incorporated the
payment (details supplied).
3. The travel allowance is claimed on the basis that one of
the controllers retained the allowance from his work as a
store detective. This was paid due to an oversight. The
claim is rejected as there is no travel involved. The workers
have a fully equipped kitchen and the meal allowance is not
merited. This allowance is not a feature of the security
industry.
4. The workers are paid an all inclusive salary and increases
in recent years have been above the terms of the P.E.S.P. The
salary involved is competitive and any increase would be in
breach of the terms of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having reviewed the terms and understandings of the P.E.S.P.,
the Court is satisfied that this case is subject to that
agreement. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
15th February, 1993. Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.