FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G4S SECURITY SOLUTIONS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute is a claim for loss of earnings by the Trade Union, due to the reduction of their members working hours from 48 to 40 per week in the Munster region in February 2011. This 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 4thFebruary 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10thMay 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February 2011, the Company decided to reduce the hours of its members in the Munster region. Some of the Union’s members had worked 48 hours per week for up to 10 years and at no point did the company give the Union or its members advance notice of the cuts.
2. The Company are still recruiting staff even though they have cut their members hours.
3. The Labour Court Recommendation no LCR20035, heard on the 9thMarch 2011 is the basis for the Unions loss of earnings claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is fundamentally uncompetitive. Their position has been exasperated by the finding that the Employment Regulation Orders were unconstitutional. Their higher rates of pay put them at a disadvantage against companies paying minimum rates per hour.
2. The average monthly hours in quarter 1 in 2011 were 28,344 in the Limerick region. This has fallen to 26,739 in the same period in 2013.
3. All the staff concerned are receiving their contracted 40 hours per week. In effect the Company has reduced additional hours over and above their contracted level. The Company cannot countenance a situation where overtime was being maintained while other staff were who could be redeployed were being made redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the nature of the service provided by the Company its security staff are required to work hours in excess of basic hours in order to meet the exigencies of the business. Consequently, those associated with this claim have had an obligation under their contract of employment over many years to work the hours for which they were actually rostered.
Arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR20035 the Company provided for the payment of compensation where the contractual rate of pay was reduced. Adopting the same approach to this case, it appears fair and reasonable that loss suffered as a result of a reduction in the working hours of those affected should be similarly compensated.
The Court recommends that the compensation based on twice the annual loss of earnings be paid to those whose earnings are reduced by reason of these changes in their contractual arrangements. The reference point for the calculation of loss should be the hours worked in 2011 relative to those worked in 2010. The compensation should be paid in two equal instalments. The first instalment should be paid within one month from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. The second instalment should be paid six months later.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
21st May, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.