FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 SECURITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Retention of allowance payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the re-instatement of the Group 4 Intel pay allowance to 4 security workers who had the payment withdrawn at the end of December, 2004.
In August, 2002, the contract for providing security service at Intel was awarded to Group 4 in place of the previous contractor Provincial Security Services (PSS). The Union claims that Group 4 assured the Union that the more favourable rates of pay operated by PSS would continue to apply. The Union claims that this did not happen and that new employees recruited were paid at the lower Group 4 rates. The issue was resolved by the new employees receiving an allowance to bring their rates of pay up to the PSS rates. A new, separate contract was set out to tender in 2004. Two contractors were involved - Ascon and Zander - and Group 4 was successful in securing these contracts. (The Union contends that it is the Zander contract which is the source of the current dispute). The contracts were based on the normal Group 4 rates, not the higher one that applied in 2002. The Union was informed of this in May, 2004. Other issues arose and an agreement was reached at the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of November, 2004. Clause 3 of the agreement relates to the current dispute:
"The 4 staff who are currently in receipt of an allowance and who have transferred over to work on the Zander Contract as of 1st November will be issued with notice of the withdrawal of the payment of this allowance but will continue to receive this allowance up to the end of 2004. The Trade Union reserves the right to pursue this issue onto the Labour Court when the allowance payment has ceased."
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The allowance was a fundamental part of the workers' terms and conditions of employment based on the Transfer of Undertakings Regulation and it should not be withdrawn.
2. It was clear from the agreement in November, 2004, at the Labour Relations Commission that the issue of the four workers was still outstanding. The Union did not agree to discontinue the allowance.
3.Both Group 4 and Intel are profitable companies. There are only four workers involved in the claim and the companies could afford to concede payment of the allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The four workers involved only moved to the site in the last year and all have worked for varying periods between the Intel site and other contractors' sites.
2.All four workers were employed on the standard Company terms which means that they could be transferred to any location in Dublin.
3. The allowance agreement on the Intel site was concluded with the Union well in advance of the arrival of the four workers concerned. The agreement to discontinue the allowance was also agreed with the Union. The workers cannot claim to have an entitlement to retain the payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns an outstanding matter following an agreement reached under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, dated 4th November, 2004. This outstanding matter relates to four employees and their claim for the restoration of an allowance which was discontinued under the terms of the Clause 3 of that agreement. Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court does not see merit in restoring the allowance.
The Court is of the view that the reference in Clause 3 to the Union's right to pursue this issue to the Court after the allowance payments had ceased gave rise to some expectation on behalf of the employees concerned. Accordingly, on the basis of eliminating any further misunderstanding with regard to the elimination of the allowance, the Court recommends that a sum of €1,000 should be paid as a once-off gesture to each of the four workers concerned, and this should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd June, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.