FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CP SECURITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Euro changeover claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of a number of cash-in-transit (CIT) workers based in Dublin and Cork for a lump-sum payment of €1,270, plus double-time rates of pay for hours worked in excess of a 44-hour working week. The claim is as a result of additional demands taken on during the euro changeover period, particularly November/December, 2001. At the hearing, there was a difference of opinion about the number of hours worked above 44 per week.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not react agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of December, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of February, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers undertook work demands and responsibilities over and above their normal duties during the euro changeover (details supplied to the Court). The level of euro business was far greater than anticipated.
2. Securicor and Brinks have agreed to pay compensatory sums to their employees for similar type co-operation as that sought and received from the Company's CIT staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both Securicor and Brinks engaged in a specific contract with specific requirements. No such contract was secured or operated by the Company.
2. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) was intended to cover the euro changeover. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded by Clause 11 of the PPF. The Company/Union agreement refers to co-operation with ongoing change.
3. There was no appreciable increase in the level of work undertaken by the CIT workers in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court is of the view that the changes involved in handling euro were minor and, therefore, the claim is precluded under the terms of Clause 11 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Court understands that the extra hours involved come within the terms of the March, 2000, agreement which introduced a composite rate for working an annual average of 44 hours per week. Therefore, the Court does not concede the Union's claim for double time for hours worked in excess of 44.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th March, 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.