FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SECURICOR SECURITY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 3% local bargaining clause of the PESP.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 360 Static Guards and 30 Patrol Guards at eight regional branches throughout the country. The Company and the Union have concluded negotiations on payment of 3% under Clause 3 of PESP with all other categories of staff except for the Static and Patrol Guards. Since 1996 the parties have been unable to identify and agree specific productivity measures which would offset the cost of the increase.
The issue was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th of August, 1997, and the 14th of October, 1997. No progress was made and the Union requested referral to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Company agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of March, 1998, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has been willing to discuss improved efficiencies and productivity measures such as a lower entry rate of pay for new recruits, flexibility in work practices and payment of wages by credit transfer. It will not surrender hard won conditions of employment.
2. The workers concerned are paid the lowest rates of pay in the company. They are required to work shift cycles covering 24 hours over seven days including weekends and public holidays. Payment of the 3% increase would help to arrest the ever widening gap in basic rates of pay between the claimants and all other members of staff.
3. Client companies have demanded that security personnel undertake additional duties and responsibilities which were not previously associated with their jobs (details supplied to the Court). The workers concerned have co-operated fully without seeking recompense while all other categories of workers have been compensated for changes they have undertaken.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is unacceptable for the Union to seek implementation of Clause 3 without making concessions in return. It is also contrary to the spirit and the letter of the PESP. All other categories of staff have reached agreement on a quid pro quo basis.
2. The security industry is labour intensive with very tight margins. The Company cannot afford to implement a wage increase without offsetting costs. An increase in labour costs would force the Company to increase prices to its clients which could result in lost contracts and lost jobs.
3. Securicor offers the best terms and conditions for Static and Patrol Guards in the industry. In addition it offers career opportunities in other aspects of the security industry which do not exist in any other static guarding company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view following the hearing that there is scope for further discussion between the parties to clarify some aspects of the proposals made by the Union.
While the Company has indicated that the changes proposed are of little value the Court is satisfied that there is likely to be a longer term benefit to the Company from some of the proposals and, therefore, some payment should be made.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties meet to explore possible areas of agreement to justify payment of the Clause 3 or part thereof.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th March, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.