FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STT RISK MANAGEMENT LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for an increase in pay for workers employed on security duties on the Luas Tram lines.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st of January, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the23rd of February, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers earn €10.75 per hour working on the Luas, whereas a comparable employee on the Dart Lines earn €13.84.
2. The Workers are deserving of a better hourly rate as they deal with a higher volume and a different profile of passengers on the Luas than in comparison to the Dart. There are also more anti-social issues to be dealt with on the Luas lines than the Dart lines.
3. This type of security work has not, and never will be covered by the Security Industry ERO.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a general acceptance that the ERO for the security industry rate of €10.75 is applicable to all workers in the Security sector.
2. A pay review shouldn't take place until the re-classification process has been completed.
3. The Company's contract with the Luas Operator only allows for it to recover increased wages costs resulting from an adjustment in the ERO rate. Any increase outside the ERO the Company cannot recover from it's client.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the Union's claim for an increase in the basic security guard rate has merit. However the Court also accepts that the scope for finally addressing that claim is limited at this time.
It is noted that the parties are proposing to engage in a process directed as reclassifying the workers in question and that this process, if successful should provide the basis for pay adjustments in return for enhanced responsibilities.
Against that background, and as an interim measure, the Court recommends that those associated with the Union's claim be paid a special allowance as a supplement to their current basic pay as follows:-
With effect from 1st January 2016: an allowance of 40c per hour.
With effect from 1st January 2017: an increase in this allowance of 10c to 50c per hour.
With effect from 1st September 2017: a further increase of 15c per hour to 65c per hour.
The allowances referred to above should be consolidated into the basic rate with effect from 1st January 2018.
Negotiations should resume between the parties in 2018 with a view to agreeing a rate of pay to take effect before the commencement of the tendering process for the awarding of a new contract following the expiry of the current contract. This should be without prejudice to any further negotiations that may take place if and when the process aimed at reclassifying the workers concerned is completed.
The recommendation is made on the basis that the workers concerned will cooperate fully with normal ongoing change and with the reclassification process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th February 2016______________________
JKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.