Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93571 Case Number: LCR14324 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ADT ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED (ADT) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Pay increase.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and evidence given at the
hearing the Court is satisfied that the claim is covered by the
terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. and that accordingly the
Company's offer as attached to their submission is reasonable in
the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept this offer
in settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93571 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14324
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ADT ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED (ADT)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The 3 workers concerned are employed by ADT as security
guards at the Gypsum Plant in Kingscourt, Co. Cavan. In
April, 1989, ADT took over the security contract at Gypsum
Industries from Argus Security. The employees of Argus were
subsequently hired to ADT.
2. In June, 1992, a new computerised weigh-bridge was
introduced at Gypsum. The security guards are required to
operate this weigh-bridge.
3. In September, 1992, the Union submitted a claim on
behalf of the workers concerned for an increase in the hourly
rate of pay to #5 per hour, plus allowances. In the period
September, 1992 to June, 1993, local-level discussions took
place following which the Company made an offer of a
consolidated rate which would be red-circled for the Gypsum
contract (details supplied). The Union rejected the offer.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 10th
September, 1993 but no agreement was reached and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court on 7th October, 1993. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 14th January, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of the computerised weigh-bridge has
resulted in the following additional responsibilities to the
workers concerned:
(a) Constantly operating a visual display unit during 12
hour shifts.
(b) The preparation of a detailed report at the end of
every shift, showing the number of vehicles which
entered and left the premises, vehicle registration,
weight in/weight out, pallets, product in and out
etc.
2. The information provided by the workers allows Gypsum to
evaluate stock control in addition to security of access to
the premises.
3. Staff employed by Gypsum Industries performing similar
work to the workers concerned are paid a substantially higher
rate of pay than the guards.
4. No other contract security guards in Ireland perform
similar work to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The extra duties outlined by the Union are generally
regarded as normal for security guards.
2. The Company's offer of 4th June, 1993 is fair and
reasonable given that the security guards are receiving
Clause 3 of the PESP in return for operating the
weigh-bridge (details of the offer included). Any further
cost increases would jeopardise the contract.
3. The contract at Gypsum Industries is a marginal one and
it is the Company's only contract in the area. Any increases
in costs cannot he passed on to the customer. If increases
in costs above the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.) were given the contract would no longer
be viable and the Company would have no option but to
terminate it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and evidence given at the
hearing the Court is satisfied that the claim is covered by the
terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. and that accordingly the
Company's offer as attached to their submission is reasonable in
the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept this offer
in settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th January, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.