FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in operation since 1968 and employs 500 security officers at various locations throughout the country. The Union is seeking application of Dublin rate of pay in respect of a site in Drogheda. Four security officers are involved in this claim. The Company has branch offices in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Athlone. The Drogheda site is administered by Dublin. The Company has introduced local arrangements (by agreement) in many locations throughout the country. There is no local agreement in place in Drogheda.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd July, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Security officers working on contracts in the Leinster area received the Dublin area rates in the past.
2. The Dublin Area Agreement as amended in October, 1994, specifically provides under note "J" that "The scope of this agreement covers all existing and future employees in the grade of Security officer in Dublin City and County and all security officers operating from and/or administered by Dublin City and County and all security officers operating from and/or administered by Dublin."
3. The contract is administered by Dublin and on that point alone the security officers concerned bring themselves within the provisions of the Dublin Area Agreement.
4. The Company's attempt to shrink the geographical scope of the Dublin Area agreement at a time of ongoing expansion of the Greater Dublin Area into neighbouring counties can only be interpreted as a pay cutting exercise on the part of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally the Company has different pay rates, terms and conditions of employment throughout the country. There is no "national" rate of pay.
2. It is custom and practice that any issues affecting employees of the Company in Co Louth area are dealt with by SIPTU's Dundalk Branch.
3. The Company believes that this claim is opportunistic and is contrary to the normal and accepted method of determining pay-rates within the Company.
4. The contact rates achieved by the Company, have always been higher in the Dublin area and correspondingly the pay rates in Dublin have reflected this.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions made by both parties is satisfied that the particular contract before the Court is not covered by the Dublin Area Agreement.
The Court, therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th November, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.