FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G4S SECURITY SERVICES (IRL) LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Changes To Roster. Redeployment/Redundancies
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a change in start time and reduced hours at a security post at one of the Company's clients. The Company's client now require security staff on the day shift to begin at 6.30am where previously it had been 7.30am. The Union's claim is that their members affected by this should be paid an overtime premium for the early start. Such a premium is already paid to staff for attending security briefing meetings which start at 7.00am. Due to a reduction in security services at the Company's client, redundancies were sought. The Union's claim is that the redundancies are of a compulsory nature and that the terms should be better than the Statutory terms offered. The Company's position is that the change in start times is normal on going change and that it has done everything that is reasonable to achieve the cutbacks on a voluntary basis.
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 13th August, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The day shift on security at the site concerned has started work at 7.30am since the site opened and no sound reason exists for changing the start time. The earlier start time represents a worsening of the working conditions of the staff concerned.
2 A precedent already exists for the concession of a compensatory payment as the security officers are currently paid time and a half when they are required to report to work at 7.00am to attend briefing meetings.
3 The offer of statutory redundancy does not represent a fair level of compensation for the loss of employment in the case of long serving staff based at the site concerned. These workers have worked exclusively at this site and are not interested in transferring to alternative Company sites which would entail a reduction in earnings and working conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company has engaged with the Union to discuss its customer's requirements. The change in the rostered start time for one shift is consistent with the flexibility agreement contained in the Company/Union agreement.
2The Company has always honoured its commitment under national agreements and does not believe compensation is justified for this change.
3The Company has done everything reasonable to achieve cutbacks on a voluntary basis. Alternative work at other customer locations was offered. Mobility between sites is a fully acceptable practice throughout the security industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted two claims before the Court – (a) claim for an overtime premium to apply to an earlier start due to the change in the rostering arrangements and (b) claim for an ex-gratia redundancy package and selection on a “last in first out" basis across all sections that the Company has employees employed with the client company.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:-
(a)change in rostering arrangements
The Court is of the view that the change to the rostering arrangements, which results in an earlier starting time, is covered by the Company/Union flexibility agreement and within the security industry can be considered as “normal ongoing change” under the terms of T16. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
(b)redundancy claim
The Court notes that the Company initially offered statutory redundancy payments to for those who volunteered and seven employees who have since departed the Company availed of this offer. Furthermore, the Company stated that as there is a need to reduce the workforce by a further 4 security officers, redeployment to alternative sites was available, with payment of twice the annual loss of earnings.
Having considered the matter the Court notes that the security officers at this site have for historical reasons, site specific contracts and many have been employed solely at this location for a lengthy period of time on terms and conditions of employment which are specific to that site. Having regard to the redeployment compensation already on offer, the Court recommends that the Company should further offer to those who wish to avail of redundancy, a once off compensation payment of €5000.00 each, limited to the required number of four redundancies.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th November, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.