FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ADT FIRE & SECURITY LIMITED (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. Re-Hearing Arising From LCR18495.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the Security Industry, supplying and monitoring security systems in three locations in Ireland, Dublin, Cork and Galway, and provides electronic security system services to approximately 20,000 customers. The Company has been in operation since 1986 and employs approximately 145 workers.
- The issues in dispute involves 15 control room (ARC) operatives and relate to:
1. Reduction in working hours to 37.5 hours per week;
2. Increase in basic pay rates and shift allowance;
3. Transition from weekly to monthly pay; and
4. Introduction of new technology, i.e CCTV equipment.- A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2006 and the Court noted at the hearingthe willingness of the parties to renegotiate and update the 1998 Agreement. In that regard, The Court recommended that the parties begin such negotiations immediately. The Court would not envisage this taking more than six moths to complete.
As agreement was not reached by the parties the dispute was referred again to the Labour Court on the 26th September, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A further Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2006.
- A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2006 and the Court noted at the hearingthe willingness of the parties to renegotiate and update the 1998 Agreement. In that regard, The Court recommended that the parties begin such negotiations immediately. The Court would not envisage this taking more than six moths to complete.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS: 3.1 The Union and the Company did indicate their acceptance of Labour Court Recommendation 18495 and did actively engage in discussions over the intervening period. These discussion were unsuccessful.
2. The Company did put forward proposals last week which would have worsened the workers' potential earnings into the future by approximately €9,000 per annum each. These proposals were rejected by the Union.
3. The Unions maintains that the final phase of Sustaining Progress is still outstanding from 1st January 2006 (2.5%) and the first phase of Towards 2016 is outstanding from the 1st July 2006 (3%).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company believes that the rate of pay and conditions of employment of the employees involved compare favourably with similar position in the security and call-centre sectors.
2. The Company's financial position has deteriorated over the period of this dispute and the ARC as a cost-centre is loss making. The ARC customer base has deteriorated from 25,000 customers in 2003 to 18,000 customers at present.
4. An attempt has been initiated by the Management to see if the employees and the Union would be prepared to discuss a resolution to these issues in the context of the Towards 2016 Agreement and cost-offsetting measures under it, specifically, but not confined to the use of CCTV and the elimination of anomalous payments within the ARC. To date, however, this approach has been rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is very concerned at the failure of the parties to significantly engage after the issue of Labour Court Recommendation LCR 18495 in order to allow for the matters between the parties to be resolved.
The Court recommends that the parties should fully re-engage as a matter of urgency with the assistance of an Industrial Relations Officer with a view to the resolution of the 4 claims placed before the Court, i.e:-
- 1. Reduction in working week to 37.5 hour;
2. Increase in basic pay and shift allowance;
3. Transition for some workers from weekly to monthly pay; and
4. Introduction of new technology.
- 1. Reduction in working week to 37.5 hour;
This should be completed no later than 20th December, 2006.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th_November, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.