FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - 30 SECURITY GUARDS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Range of issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the terms and conditions of employment of a number of security officers employed by the Company who were former employees of G4 Security (G4S) on the Intel Site. G4S had previously taken over the contract from another company - Provisional Security Services Limited - in 2004 in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. The Company in turn took over the contract on the 30th March, 2009, also in accordance with the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations according to the Union.
There were a number of issues referred to the Court, including the 48-hour working week, unsocial working hours, sick-pay scheme, travel allowance and a savings scheme. The main issue for the Union was the Company's proposal to change the working week from 48 hours to a 36/48 hour roster, giving an average 42-hour week. The Company's position on the other issues is as follows:
Travel allowance:the Company wishes cease paying the allowance which is €25.76 per week. It claims that it is being paid to nine workers regardless of how far they travel.
Unsocial allowance:the Company wishes to end the payment and replace it with the JLC allowance.
Sick pay:the Company wishes to end the current scheme and replace it with the JLC Sick Pay Scheme.
Savings scheme:the Company wishes to discontinue its current contribution which it says it cannot afford.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th May, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st July, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company informed the Union that it would take over the G4S contract in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. However, on taking over the contract the Company proceeded to make number of significant changes, including reducing the working week to an average of 42 hours resulting in a significant loss of earnings for the workers concerned.
2. The other issues as listed above will also mean a loss of earnings or a change in the terms and conditions of employment for the workers as a result of the Company's decision to change the contract.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had to make changes to the contract for economic, organisational and technical reasons but it discussed these with the shop stewards before introducing these changes. Most of the issues involved unnecessary costs which the Company could not sustain if it were to deliver an efficient and economic service.
2. The Company believes that the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations do not necessarily apply in the security industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the view of the Court, having reviewed the papers and listened to the submissions of the parties, the transfer from G4 Security to Brinks was effected under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations.
Given that, the conditions of employment as set out in the existing contract should remain until they have been altered by agreement.
As the view of the Company is that changes need to be effected in order to conform with industry norms, the Court recommends that the parties should urgently engage, with the assistance of conciliation if necessary, in order to bring about such agreement and such engagement to be concluded by 30th September, 2009.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th July, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.