FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ISS FACILITY SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Rate of pay for three Mobile Drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of three of its members in relation to pay. The three Workers involved are currently employed by the Company as mobile security patrol drivers based in the Limerick region and it is their claim that they are receiving a lower rate of pay than their counterparts located in Galway and in Dublin despite carrying out identical duties. The Union on behalf of its members is currently seeking pay parity with the Galway and Dublin based employees and the retrospective payment of the increased rate of pay. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that they are in a weakening financial position and cannot concede to any cost-increasing claim.
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 19th July, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th April, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Workers involved in this claim are mobile patrol drivers yet they are incorrectly remunerated at the rate of pay of a static guard.
2. The Employer is operating outside of industry norms by paying the three mobile patrol drivers at a significantly lower rate of pay.
3. The Union on behalf of its members asserts that the rate of pay of these three Workers must be brought in line with that of other employees based in alternative locations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a signicant variance in the duties carried out by employees based in Limerick and employees based in Dublin and Galway.
2. The increased rate of pay reflects the increased duties and responsibilities of the employees based in Dublin and Galway.
3. The Employer is not in a financial position to award pay increases at this time however as a gesture of goodwill the Employer has offered a payment per shift allowance and a once-off lump sum in settlement of this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that since this dispute was at Conciliation the Company has made an offer to pay a shift allowance of€15 per shift together with€500 in respect of retrospection. It is further noted that the offer of a shift allowance is acceptable in settlement of the claim but the proposal on retrospection is not acceptable.
The claim was first raised by the Union in 2010 and it was referred to Conciliation in May 2011. In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Company revise its offer of retrospection to one of€2,500 and that the Company's offer as amended be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd April 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.