FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED ALARMS AND SAFES LIMITED TRADING AS ADT FIRE & SECURITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. 37.5 hour working week; 2. Basic pay rates and shift allowance; 3. Weekly to monthly pay; 4. New technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the security industry supplying and monitoring security systems. In 1998 an amalgamation took place between ADT and MSS. At that time control room operatives were represented by SIPTU and an Agreement was entered into relating to the integration of both companies. The TEEU now represents the workers concerned and accepts that this Agreement applies.
- The issues in dispute involve 15 control room operatives and relate to:
1. 37.5 hour working week
2. Basic pay rates and shift allowance
3. Weekly to monthly pay
4. New technology.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 There has been much discontent on both sides vis-a-vis interpretations of the 1998 Agreement and it has proven very difficult to negotiate a new agreement for workers regarding the 42 hour working week, basic pay rates, changing from weekly to monthly pay and on the implementation of new technology.
2. The Union has endeavoured to negotiate a new agreement with the Company since 2004. Since the transaction both parties could not agree on a number of issues affecting the move to Park West.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company have stated their willingness to renegotiate with the Union the 1998 Agreement.
2. The claims brought by the Union are cost-increasing and precluded under Section 1.5 of Sustaining Progress and should be rejected in full. The Company has honoured all phases of Sustaining Progress and previous National Wage Agreements and expect that the obligations of Sustaining Progress be honoured by the Union.
3. Concessions of this claim would lead to knock on claims from other categories of staff. Any increase in salary costs would undermine the Company's competitiveness in an environment that is subject to constant cost reduction pressure owing to decisions of the Company's clients.
4. The Company has been loss making for the last 3 years and the number of clients serviced by the Company has fallen from 25,000 to 20,000.
5. Staff work a considerable amount of overtime which is paid at various rates. In 2005 the average paid in overtime was €9,000 per employee which brings average earnings to almost €37,500. This is a very good salary for the requirements of the job.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the willingness of both parties to renegotiate and update the 1998 Agreement.
In that regard, the Court recommends that the parties begin such negotiations immediately. The Court would not envisage this taking more than six months to complete.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th February, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.