FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Withdrawal of Dell site allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 65 security guards who are employed by the Company as security guards. In 2000 security guards working at the Dell Computers Limited site in Limerick were provided with a site allowance by Dell. Subsequently the allowance was also paid to guards at sites in Bray and Dublin (Cherrywood). The basis for the allowance was that Securicor paid a fixed amount as an additional allowance, linked to some performance criteria, and this would be charged separately to the client. It was paid on the basis that it did not attract overtime or shift premia and was not included for pension purposes. The agreement provided that the site allowance payment would only continue as long as Dell agreed to fund the system. Following a review of its costs Dell advised Securicor in May, 2003 that it was no longer willing to pay the site allowance. Agreement was reached which allowed for the phasing out of the allowance payment. It was discontinued from June, 2003. The Union sought the continuation of payment of the allowance or that compensation be paid to the claimants for their loss. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in September, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 27th October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The withdrawal of the site allowance by the Company is in breach of the agreement reached in 2000 in relation to the Limerick site. It is also in breach of agreements introduced on behalf of security staff located on Dell sites in Dublin and Bray.
2. By withdrawing the allowance, in circumstances where the required performance standards have been achieved and remain a condition of the contract, Securicor and Dell are acting in bad faith and contrary to the behaviour expected from reasonable employers.
3. The allowance constituted a regular part of the claimants' wages which they had come to rely on. It is unfair to expect them to accept such a significant drop in regular earnings without receiving appropriate compensation for their loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The basis for the payment of the site allowance was discussed with staff and fully accepted by the Union which also fully understood all the conditions attaching to the payment of the allowance.
2. The Company pays the best rates of pay in the industry. It is finding it difficult in the current economic climate, to compete for and retain contracts.
3. The Company recognises that the impact of the cessation of the payment on the claimants is significant. The nature of the business is low margin and the Company has no ability to pay this allowance unless it can be passed on to clients.
4. The Company is presently engaged in a re-tendering process to try and retain the Dell contract and has re-tendered for it, excluding the site allowance. Despite this the Company's offer is not the lowest received by Dell.
5. The Company cannot contemplate any form of compensation for the loss as it would not have the ability to absorb such a payment nor could it be passed on.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the site payment was paid by the client, not the employer, in order to attract and retain security officers.
It is also clear that the payment would only be paid as long as the client company continued to agree to fund the payment.
While it would appear that the client company had the right to discontinue subsidising the site payment, the Court is of the view that it would have been fairer to do this at the termination of the contract which had only a few months to run.
However, given the agreement as written the Court does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th November,2003______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.