FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS SECURITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. (i) Contributions to Sick Pay Scheme and (ii) Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the level of contributions to the Company Sick Pay Scheme, appropriate and transparent administration of the scheme and a claim for a pay increase of 4%. The Union's position is that the Company is not paying in an equal contribution to the sick pay scheme and should increase its contributions. Management's position is that it does contribute equally to the sick pay scheme. It contends that due to the competitive nature of its business and the fact that its employees are paid at higher levels than competitors, it cannot sustain the costs of any pay increases at this time.
The dispute 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 15th July 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd September 2014
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers contribution of €8 to the sick pay scheme is of greater value than the employers contribution of €8 as the workers contributions are net of income tax. This effectively means the the workers are contributing more to the scheme than the employer.
2 The Union is seeking that the administration of the scheme be more transparent with both sides involved in the management of the scheme and a separate bank account used to administer the scheme.
3 The workers are seeking a pay increase on the basis of the additional duties that they to carry out and the fact that they have co-operated at all times with Management and have greatly assisted with ongoing payroll savings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company contends that its contributions to the sick pay scheme are of equal value to the workers contributions. It does not accept that the value of the workers contributions are greater on the basis of those contributions being net of income tax. The intention of the Scheme was that each party would contribute an amount of money but not the gross equivalent.
2 Management is willing to discuss the improved administration of the Scheme with the Union and does not have a difficulty with a separate bank account being used. These issues should be discussed between the parties with a view to reaching a satisfactory resolution.
3 The Company continues to pay higher rates of pay to the Claimants than applies generally in the sector since the abolition of the Joint Labour Committee system of pay determination. It cannot sustain additional pay increases as it would result in a lack of competitiveness and would affect the future viability of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court were two claims submitted by the Union on behalf of a group of approximately 21 Security Officers based at the Intel site in Leixlip. The claims concerned (i) the level of employer contribution into the Sick Pay Fund Scheme and the administration of the Fund, and (ii) a pay increase for the workers concerned.
The Sick Pay Scheme
Having considered the submissions made by both parties and having examined the details of the Scheme, the Court is satisfied that the level of contributions into the Sick Pay Fund Scheme is based on both parties contributing equal amounts, i.e. €8.00 per week per employee from both the employer and employees. The Court is satisfied that these equal amounts are not subject to considerations of whether they are gross or nett amounts. Therefore the Court does not find in favour of that aspect of the Union’s claim.
The Court recommends that as the Scheme is a jointly funded scheme, equally contributed to by both sides then it should be jointly administrated by both sides. The Court recommends in favour of a designated bank account being set up for the Fund. Furthermore, it recommends that the parties should seek the required expert advice on how to jointly manage and administer the Scheme, which the Court recommends should be actively managed by a committee representative of both sides.
Pay Claim
The Union submitted a claim for an increase of 4% in pay on behalf of the workers covered by this case. Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court is of the view that the parties should await the outcome of the talks currently underway into the formulation of a new Employment Regulation Order for a new Security Joint Labour Committee. The Court recommends that on the completion of these discussions the parties should then review the matter. Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of the claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd September 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.