Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95245 Case Number: LCR14799 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SECURICOR LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for implementation of rates of pay and other conditions provided for in the Securicor National Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends as follows:-
1. That the Union should accept the Company's two rate
structure. The lower rate would only be applied to protect
marginal business. In all other cases the higher rate would
apply.
2. That the Company's time and .25 rate of pay for overtime would
cease forthwith in all cases where it is applied. In future
time and .50 will apply.
3. That travel allowance where applicable be paid to employees.
4. That the payment for public holidays be double time plus
hours worked.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95245 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14799
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SECURICOR LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for implementation of rates of pay and
other conditions provided for in the Securicor National
Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute relates to the rates of pay and conditions
of employment of static security guards employed by the
Company in the Waterford area. Some of the Company's
workers in Waterford enjoy the full Securicor national
terms and conditions of employment but others are
employed on a lower rate of pay, reduced overtime
premiums and other less favourable conditions. The
Company maintained that, in 1990, agreement was reached
locally on these terms. The Union claimed that the
terms and conditions of employment of the workers on the
lower rates be brought into line with the terms provided
for in the National Agreement. Management rejected the
Union's claim.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission in November, 1992. A conciliation conference
was held but no agreement was reached. Following a
further conciliation conference held in February, 1993
the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a set of
proposals on a revised hourly rate which narrowed the
gap between the local and national rate. These
proposals were accepted by the parties in May 1993.
3. Disagreement subsequently arose at local level
discussions in relation to the workers' other terms and
conditions particularly overtime premia, public holiday
payment and travel allowance. A further conciliation
conference was held on the 4th April, 1995. Agreement
was not possible and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 10th April, 1995. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 30th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Agreement was not reached locally in 1990 on reduced
terms and conditions of employment for some static
guards. There is no written memo of such an agreement.
2. The Union accepted the Labour Relations Commission's
proposal of May, 1993 increasing the basic rate by #6
per week. The Union recognised that the Company was
under severe competition for contracts in the Waterford
area. No commitment was given to accept the lower rate
indefinitely and it was envisaged that the rates would
be increased to the standard rate over a period of time.
3. The Company has consistently insisted on paying the
reduced overtime premium, less favourable holiday
payments and travel allowances. This is not acceptable.
The Union asks the Court to recommend that: The basic
wage rate be increased to the official rate of #163.29
rising after 3 years service to #172.35, travel
allowance currently #3.25 per week be paid, the overtime
rate of time and .50 to be applied, and that the public
holiday terms in the National Agreement be applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company reached agreement with staff representatives
in Waterford and agreed terms on which the Company would
quote for certain contracts at a minimum rate. It was
accepted that if the Company had not tendered at these
rates Management would not have been successful in
obtaining business. Other such local agreements are
in-force in Cork, Limerick and Tralee.
2. While the Company accepted the Industrial Relations
Officer's proposals of May, 1993 and increased the basic
rate of pay, Management did not concede that the
standard rate would be applied to overtime, holidays or
travelling allowance. Costs associated with applying
these terms could not be sustained by the Company and
such costs cannot be passed on to clients. If the
Union's claim was conceded job losses would inevitably
occur.
3. The Company faces severe competition from a large number
of non-union companies paying low wage rates. In the
past three years it has increased its number of static
guards by 3 due to contract work acquired at the minimum
rate. This compares to an increase of 40 static guards
employed by competitors. The lack of success in gaining
contracts is price related. The Company seeks the right
to employ all new entrants in the Waterford branch at
the lower rates of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends as follows:-
1. That the Union should accept the Company's two rate
structure. The lower rate would only be applied to protect
marginal business. In all other cases the higher rate would
apply.
2. That the Company's time and .25 rate of pay for overtime would
cease forthwith in all cases where it is applied. In future
time and .50 will apply.
3. That travel allowance where applicable be paid to employees.
4. That the payment for public holidays be double time plus
hours worked.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.