FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company Group 4 Securicor (G4S) employs approximately 2,500 in the provision of security and other related services throughout the country. G4S Security Services, also known as the Technical Division, installs both alarms and CCTV and is based in three locations in Dublin, Munster and Athlone and employs 35 Engineers and 9 back-up staff.
The Company intimated that due to the economic downturn compulsory redundancies or closure was under consideration for the Technical Division. Protracted negotiations between Management and Union began to discuss methods of reducing costs and this was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. All issues have been resolved by April 2009 regarding work practices, terms and conditions of employment with the exceptions of the method of selection for redundancy and the amount of compensation due for redundancy.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th May, 2009, as a matter of urgency in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1.Short-time working and a reduction in pay and conditions have already been accepted by the Workers and the situation was basically to accept these reductions or the Company would close. Now the questions are how up to a possible 13 redundancies are to be decided, is it to be on a voluntary or Last In First Out (LIFO) basis, and at what level the compensation ought to be paid.
2. Coupled with the fact that our members have accepted reductions in pay and conditions further strengthens our claim for a redundancy package and that reflects what is happening across comparable security companies.
3. Taking all the circumstances into consideration a four weeks' average earnings per year of service plus statutory entitlements should now be offered without a cap on voluntary basis in the first instance and if there are insufficient volunteers then the selection should be by way of last in first out LIFO)
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Technical Division's poor performance has been masked by the much better performing and larger divisions most particularly the Manned Guarding Division. In 2006 it was determined that this position was unsustainable and that the Technical Division had to be able sustain itself as a stand-alone business.
2. The Division cannot afford to support enhanced payments above the statutory entitlements and the selection criteria used must be LIFO as to do otherwise would cause costs to spiral as currently the average length of service amongst the staff is approaching ten years.
3. These payments will have to be supported by other Divisions whose staff are on significantly lower rates of pay and would negatively impact upon them as they are also under considerable financial pressure.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Technical Division affected by the redundancies at issue is a stand-alone business within the G4S Group. The terms and conditions of employment of the staff associated with this claim are separately negotiated and there are no relationships, for negotiating purposes, between them and the generality of security staff in the employment of the Group.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the following terms apply in respect of the proposed redundancies: -
1. Selection should, in the first instance, be on a voluntary basis. In the event of insufficient volunteers LIFO should apply. In the event of there being more volunteers than are required the selection should be made from amongst the volunteers by management at its discretion.
2. There should be an ex-gratia payment of four weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements.
3. The total redundancy payment should not, in any case, exceed the equivalent of 65 weeks' pay. Moreover, no individual should be entitled to receive more in redundancy then their earning potential up to normal retirement age.
This Recommendation is made having regard to the particular circumstances pertaining in this Division of the business. Accordingly, it is not intended to have any precedent value within the overall Group and should not be relied upon nor quoted in support of claims for any other group or category of staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th May, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.