FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 SECURITAS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Pay parity with security officers in Dublin. 2. Payment of overtime after 48 hours.
3. Appropriate payment for holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. Pay parity
The union submitted a pay claim on behalf of its members as outlined above. The union claims that the company provides security at two Xerox sites, one in Dublin and the other in Dundalk. It states that the hourly rate in Dublin is €8.12 while the hourly rate in Dundalk is €7.61. The union is seeking parity of rates for the two sites. It believes that this is provided for by the Dublin Area Agreement.
The company rejects the union's claim and states that the contract price for each site is different and it is the contract price which determines the hourly rate.
Payment of overtime rates
The union claims that the company introduced an hourly composite rate of pay to include overtime. It states that many security officers working on the Xerox site work more than 48 hours. When they work in excess of 48 hours they are at a loss. The loss is more noticeable after 54 hours. The union wants overtime paid after 48 hours.
The company claims that the composite rate of pay includes overtime, and therefore, overtime cannot be paid after 48 hours.
Payment for holidays
The union claims that the contract for security officers working on the Xerox site in Dundalk stipulates a 48 hour week. When staff take a week's holiday, they are only paid for 40 hours. They want payment for 48 hours.
The company states that the contracted hours are 40 hours and that the Organisation of Working Time Act only requires them to pay holiday pay in respect of contracted hours.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th May, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th June, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th December, 2002 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
Pay parity
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers on both sites are employed by the same company and should receive the same hourly rate of pay for the job.
2. It is unacceptable that workers employed at the Dundalk site should be treated less favourably for pay purposes than their colleagues in Dublin.
3. The cost of living in Dundalk is equal to the cost of living in Dublin.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally and historically, the company has had different pay rates, terms and conditions of employment throughout the country.
2. Conceding a pay claim of this nature would place the company in an uncompetitive position in the market place outside Dublin and would be inconsistent with established custom and practice.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness(PPF).
Payment of overtime
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
5. 1. Each hour the claimants work beyond the 48 hours (where no overtime premium is paid), has the effect of reducing the composite hourly rate for the staff concerned.
2. In many cases, hours in excess of sixty would have been worked by the staff.
3. The union asks the Court to recommend that an overtime premium apply for hours worked in excess of 48 hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
6. 1. The rate of pay in Dundalk is a composite rate and is applicable to all hours worked.
2. The composite rate in Dundalk is based on the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) rate for 54 hours. This rate is due to increase in January, 2003.
Holiday pay
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
7. 1. The standard working week for the claimants is 48 hours. However, when they take their holiday entitlements they are only paid for a 40 hour working week.
2. The holiday entitlement should be based on the hours that they actually work and the Organisation of Working Time Act reflects this fact.
3. Where hours worked are in excess of the basic working week, the Court has recommended that these hours be included in holiday calculations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
8. 1. A 40 hour working week is the contracted norm.
2. In common with normal practice throughout the security industry, payment for holidays is calculated on an 8 hour work day.
3. When the Organisation of Working Act, 1997 came into operation, annual leave was increased to 20 days, for which payments are made on the basis of 8 hours per day.
4. This claim, if conceded, could force the company into an uncompetitive position in the market place and result in serious jobs losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the three claims and recommends as follows:-
(a) Pay Parity
The Court is satisfied that the contract in Dundalk is not covered by the Dublin Area Agreement and there is no basis to recommend parity of pay with the rates paid to workers in the Dublin plant.
(b) Payment of Overtime Rates
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court recommends that overtime payments should be made after 54 hours work per week.
(c) Payment for Holidays
The Court recommends that payment for holidays should reflect the average pay of the previous 13 weeks pay prior to the taking of such leave, up to a max of 48 hours per week.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th December, 2002______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.