FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G4S SECURITY SERVICES (IRL) LTD - AND - 900 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Change in unsocial hours premium and change in pay period.
BACKGROUND:
2. G4S Secure Solutions is the largest security services provided in Ireland operating nationwide. The Company employs 2,500 in the provision of an extensive range of security and other services. The claim before the Court concerns 900 security workers in the Dublin region.
In June 2008 the Company entered into an agreement with representatives of the Eastern Region whereby rates of pay and related terms and conditions of employment were fixed in line with the Employment Regulation Order for the period 1st March 2008 to 31st December 2009.
By September 2008 the Company's financial position started to deteriorate. In March/April 2009 the Company held meetings with the Union to discuss the position. Agreement was reached on the manner in which the composite rate system would operated going forward. No agreement could be reached on the introduction of the fortnightly pay period and the reduction in the unsocial hours premium.
The dispute could not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th August, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union are not opposed in principle to the introduction of a fortnightly pay period but contends that the changeover would have an adverse impact of its members and that the Company should make a compensatory payment to them to cushion the impact of this change.
2. The Union contends that its members would experience difficulties and inconvenience in rearranging their affairs to adjust to receiving their wages fortnightly rather than weekly. This would involve changing direct debits and other banking arrangements.
3. The Union contends that as the higher unsocial hours rate paid to Dublin Area Agreement employees is part of an existing agreement freely entered into by both the Employer and the Union and it does not constitute ongoing change as intended in the 2016 Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The introduction of fortnightly pay will provide the Company with considerable savings in terms of material, postage and back office wage costs. The Company is prepared to make an advance of wages to the staff affected in line with recent Labour Court recommendations.
2.The Company is among the higher payers across the industry and the amount paid over and above the JLC rate is but one example of this. This benefit is enjoyed only by former Group 4 staff, approximately 50% of the total number affected by these proposals.
3.The reduction in the unsocial allowance premium to €17.00 per shift is a relatively small contribution against an alternative scenario where the Company has avoided, with the exception of the South West Region, laying personnel off.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute before the Court be resolved on the following basis:-
Fortnightly Pay
The Court recommends that the Union accept the change in fortnightly pay. The Company should make an advance payment to those affected of €200 to be repaid over 10 weeks.
Shift Allowance
The Court does not recommend concession of the Company's claim for a reduction in the shift payment without compensation. If the Company are prepared to enter discussions on a compensatory payment the parties should negotiate on that basis with a view to reaching agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th August, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.