FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Changes in Shift Roster.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the Company's proposal to change the Security Officers' daily shift hours from twelve to ten hours a day and extend their working week from four to five days at a location on the Intel site in Leixlip Co. Kildare. The Company claims that the proposal arises as a result of a request from Intel. The Union objected to the proposal on the basis that Management was in breach of agreed procedures in introducing the change without adequate consultation. 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 on the 24th August, 2006 in accord with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Implementing the proposed change without the agreement of the Security Officers would amount to a breach of their collective agreement and individual contracts of employment.
2. The present 48-hour shift working arrangement has continued without change for many years. In the absence of a statutory requirement it would be unreasonable and unfair to change the long established working arrangements around which the Claimants have organised their life and family affairs.
3. Introducing the change would have an adverse effect on the Security Officers by extending their working week by an extra day and /or requiring more Security Officers to go on night shifts. Security Officers fear that the introduction of the ten-hour shift on one site would inevitably lead to the introduction of a ten-hour shift on all locations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is essential that the Company, as service- provider to Intel, be able to respond to the requirements of the Client. As with all other service- providers the Company has to deliver on the cost reductions challenges.
2. The employment contracts that governed the employment of Security Officers clearly provided terms that inform them of the requirement for them to respond to requests for ongoing change. The Company/ Union agreements that are in place reinforce this requirement. This relates to changes in shift patterns, working hours and other changes as may be required.
3. There is no legitimate basis for the Security Officers to refuse to accept what are reasonable requests, constitute normal ongoing changes as understood in the industry and implement with immediate effect the revised working arrangements as required by management and the customer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the Company's actions and its subsequent attempts to resolve the issue were, in a Client-driven business, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of both the Company / Union Agreement and the Contracts of Employment.
The Court ,therefore, rejects the Union's claim and recommends that the workers concerned accept the changes proposed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th November, 2006
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.