FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 57(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : ISS CONTRACT CLEANERS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Application for an interpretation under Section 57(1) As to whether or not 2 workers are covered by the Contract Cleaning JLC.
BACKGROUND:
2. ISS Contract Cleaners Limited is a major provider of cleaning services in Ireland. In 1994 it secured the Teagasc cleaning contract based at the National Food Centre, Dunsinea.
The dispute concerns the question as to whether or not the employees of ISS employed at the Teagasc site are covered by the terms of the Contract Cleaning (City and County of Dublin) JLC.
The Union claims that the work carried out by the two workers concerned is outside the scope of the cleaning JLC and is seeking a higher rate of pay. It argues that prior to 1994 the workers were employed by AGB Scientific as laboratory assistants and that when Teagasc engaged the services of ISS they were informed by Teagasc that their employment was being transferred to ISS.
The Company's position is that the workers are clearly covered by the Contract Cleaning JLC. It argues that the workers are engaged in contract cleaning, ISS being the contractor and Teagasc being the client and the workers to whom the JLC applies are described in the schedule to the ERO as:
"Workers employed in Contract Cleaning in the City and County of Dublin who are engaged on any of the following duties, that is to say: the cleaning of the interior of offices, shops, hospitals, factories, stores and other similar establishments."
Local level discussions took place but agreement could not be reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached at conciliation the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 2000 under section 57(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of June, 2000.
3. 1. The workers are incorrectly designated as cleaning staff. They are specialist cleaners and work with chromic acid and acetone. The Union accepts that the workers do some cleaning duties; however they are primarily involved in laboratory and horticultural duties as well as materials handling.
2. Prior to 1994 the workers were employed by AGB Scientific, a subsidiary of Teagasc. They were employed as laboratory assistants and were required to do some cleaning duties. In 1994 the workers were informed by Teagasc that their employment was transferred to ISS.
3. Other employees of AGB Scientific i.e. technical staff were offered employment by Teagasc in 1994 and now enjoy all of the benefits enjoyed by other Teagasc staff such as security of employment, pay rates, pension entitlements etc.
4. The chemicals used by workers in the course of their duties are potentially dangerous and the workers must conform to set regulations during their frequent use of the chemicals. In the circumstances the Union's claim is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The claimants are engaged in the cleaning of the "interior" of the National Food Centre, specifically the laboratories. This falls within the terms of the Employmeent Regulation Order which covers work in "...hospitals , factories stores and other similar establishments". The claimants clearly fall into this category and are engaged in the cleaning of the interior of the site mentioned.
2. The workers concerned in this dispute are employed, as cleaners at the National Food Centre, Dunsinea, and the duties undertaken by these workers are general tasks undertaken by many cleaners in the contract cleaning industry.
3. The JLC Employment Regulation Order does not define the nature of the cleaning that is covered by the JLC schedule, it simply refers to "the cleaning of the interior of offices, shops, hospitals, factories, stores and other similar establishments". Certain types of cleaning such as exterior structural cleaning are excluded from the JLC. Concession of the union claim to differentiate between types of cleaning or between office versus hospital/laboratory based cleaning duties would have serious repercussive effects across the industry and cannot be considered in isolation.
4. The union has claimed that the duties carried out by the claimants are unique and that they are manifestly different from other cleaning duties. The company strongly rejects this claim. The cleaners work in the laboratory ensuring that these areas are kept clean and tidy. They wash glassware, clean work- benches and floors and transfer waste to bins. In other words, the nature and extent of the work is no different from cleaning work carried out by other cleaners on other similar establishments or hospital environments.
5. The union argues that the claimants are incorrectly termed "cleaning staff" and that, by virtue of the content of their work, they should be referred to as "laboratory specialists". The basis for this argument appears to be the requirement for the cleaners to use certain chemicals when cleaning laboratory equipment. The company rejects this argument on the basis that the cleaning materials used at the Teagasc site are standard cleaning materials. Furthermore, ISS Ltd are in compliance with all health and safety regulations.
6. The work carried out by the cleaners at the contract site is unskilled work. The company secured the contract at this site in 1994. The union did not raise any problems with the claimant's terms and conditions at that time. The company is of the view that the claimants are paid an appropriate rate of pay for the work that they do.
7. ISS Ltd secured the contract at the Teagasc site on the basis of competitive tendering. There is no provision for adjusting the contract price, once negotiated. The company is not in a position to absorb the increase in labour costs that concession of this claim would lead to.
DECISION:
Having considered all the information presented to it, the Court, in accordance with Section 57 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 determines that, in terms of definition, the cleaning duties involved in this case fall within the definition of the Contract Cleaning J.L.C.
However, the facts of this case are that the claimants were not paid ratesin accordance with the J.L.C.by the previous employer but were paid a rate which was higher. Their original terms of employment were with AGB scientific, a subsidiary of Teagasc. Under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 1980 their employment rights are protected. The Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss an appropriate rate of pay for these employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28 July, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.