FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SENACA GROUP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payment of PSA Licence
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute in relation to a claim by the Union for the Company to pay for the Private Security Authority (P.S.A) Licence required by its Cash in Transit (C.I.T) employees. The Union contends that there is an understanding throughout the industry that the employers meet the cost of the licence. Management contends that it does not pay the cost of the licence as to do so for all its staff would be cost prohibitive.
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st August 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th November 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The PSA Licence is a requirement for all CIT staff employed in the industry. All of the major companies engaged in this sector meet the cost of the license for their CIT staff.
2. Concession of this claim would not create a precedent in respect of static guards or other security staff as the common practice in the industry if for those employees to meet the cost of providing their own licenses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company cannot meet the costs of paying for the licences for the Union members associated with this claim as it does not pay for the licences for its wider group of staff. To do so would create a very costly precedent that the Company could not afford if it is to continue to tender for business in a cost effective manner.
2. As the licence is the property of the worker and as they can change employment once in possession of a valid licence, it is appropriate that each worker pay for their own licences.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds merit in the Union's claim. The Court recommends that the Company, in respect of the workers covered by the claim (trade union members employed in the cash in transit division of the Company), meet the cost of the Private Security Authority license introduced in May 2013.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
10th December 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.