FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ONE COMPLETE SOLUTIONS (OCS) (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay claim on behalf of four security and three cleaning staff. 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 11th August, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th October, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have not had a pay increase in almost five years
2 The Workers, though employed as private security guards, never had their pay rate set with reference to JLCs. Accordingly talks currently ongoing in that sector are not relevant to this dispute.
3 The Workers' pay rate has, instead, always followed the norm in the retail sector and more specifically the rates of pay agreed in the anchor tenant in the retail centre, in this case TESCO. The claim before the Court is to adjust the Worker's pay rates in line with the increase that has been applied to staff employed in TESCO.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Concession of this claim, which the Company cannot afford, would have wider implications. There are seven workers involved in this dispute. However the Company employs several hundred workers in the Security and Cleaning sectors. Any increase recommended in this case will prejudice talks going on in those sectors. Accordingly the Court should not recommend concession of a claim on behalf of a small group of workers until those talks are concluded and a rate for the industry agreed between the parties.
2 The Court should further note that this group of workers is already paid in excess of JLC rates of pay. A further increase at this time will further exacerbate an inequitable and unaffordable situation that cannot be sustained and should not be supported.
3. The pay of this group should not be considered until the JLC discussions are finished. At that point the matter might be revisited in the context of the already high levels of pay that apply to this group.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court notes that the claimants in this case have no established pay relationship with the retail trade and consequently the Court does not recommend the Union’s claim as presented.
The Court notes that discussions regarding pay are ongoing between employer and worker representatives in both the Security and Cleaning sectors. Accordingly the Court recommends that the percentage pay increases agreed in those talks be applied to the claimants in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
14th November, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.