LCR16311

BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns approximately 300 security officers employed by the Company in the Dublin area.

In October, 1994, due to the competitive nature of the security industry, the Company and Union reached agreement on a new pay scale in respect of new recruits to the Company's workforce. In early 1998, the Union sought to re-negotiate the October 1994 agreement, due to the Company's improved circumstances and in order to reduce the imbalance between the 'pre-1994' and 'post-1994' rates of pay. Following negotiations between the parties, a set of proposals issued which provided, inter alia, for the red-circling of conditions of pre-1994 staff, and a new wage scale, ranging from £4.25 per hour to £4.70 per hour, commencing January 1st, 1999, including Phase 3 of Partnership 2000, and a structured overtime payment system. These November 1998 proposals were rejected by ballot of the workforce.

Following a conciliation conference, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 26th of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

In the meantime, the Company proposed further increased pay rates while seeking the introduction of permanent part-time/seasonal workers, capped at 12% of the Security Staff, in response to its difficulties in recruiting full-time staff. A second set of proposals (May 1999 offer), though rejected by ballot of the workforce was implemented by the Company.


The Court carried out its investigation into the dispute on the 19th of August, 1999, the earliest date convenient to both parties.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company's proposals constitute a positive step on the issue of the 2% local bargaining element of the P2000 agreement and benefit the majority of the workforce by twice the amount provided for in P2000.

2. Existing agreements preclude the Company from employing part-time employees. These agreements severely damage the Company's ability to function in the current market as they reduce the flexibility that is an essential element in attracting staff.

3. Productivity-based proposals are not feasible in the industry so cost-offsetting initiatives are not possible. This, effectively, means that the cost of the Company's proposals must be met by the Company.

4. Those proposals go a long way to harmonising the terms and conditions of the two groups of employees in the Company.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The post October 1994 terms and conditions of employment were agreed at a time when the Company was experiencing extreme competitive pressures as a consequence of the decline in pay rates in the security industry after the industry's registered employment agreement was declared invalid by the High Court. They were introduced as a short-term measure to afford the Company the potential to maintain its position as a leading provider of quality manned security services. The 1994 agreement, by providing for a maximum number of 70 security officers to be retained on the old terms and conditions, supports the Union's view in this respect. It was never intended to abolish the pre-1994 terms and conditions of employment.

2. In the changed circumstances of today, with security firms vying with each other for staff and offering improved rates in the course of doing so, the Company is now in a much stronger position and can afford to apply pre-1994 terms and conditions to all its security officers. This represents the best solution to the current controversy over the two tier pay and conditions structure. At a time when there is a severe shortage of labour, such concessions would greatly assist the Company to recruit and retain the calibre of staff required.

3. The 2% local bargaining increase provided for under P2000 falls due from July, 1998. The Company's offer of a delayed and phased implementation of this increase is unfair and unreasonable. The vast majority of settlements covering the payment of the local bargaining 2% involve payment from the due date. There is no good reason why this general trend should not apply in this Company.

4. The grievance of the pre-October 1994 staff regarding the top point of the salary scale should be addressed in the context of the present move towards pay harmonisation. This can be achieved by the introduction of a new top point on the salary scale providing for an hourly rate of £5.25 which represents the maximum point of the salary scale contained in the Union's industry-wide minimum pay and conditions claim.

5. The Company's decision to proceed unilaterally with the employment of seasonal and part-time staff is unacceptable. The Company should revert to the status quo pending the processing of the dispute through the agreed procedures.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Union made a strong argument that the Company had unilaterally implemented its May, 1999 offer, which had been rejected, while going through the procedures.

The Company, while accepting this, argued that the Union was well aware that this was happening and made no formal complaint, indeed it insisted that, without this implementation, contracts could not have been honoured.

Having considered the information supplied, the Court is satisfied that the Company has honoured its P2000 commitments and, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.

However, the Court recommends that the Company proposal of May 1999 be accepted by the employees but that the 2% payable from 1st September, 1999 be paid from 1st July, 1999.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
11th October, 1999.______________________
MK/BCChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.