FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY MSS IRELAND LTD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Union's claim for a pay increase on behalf of a group of security workers. The Union is seeking a 12% pay increase to be applied in 3 equal phases over 2 years. The Union is further seeking the retrospective application of the phased pay increases from January 2015 and January 2016 respectively. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that this group of workers receive higher rates of pay than the standard industry norm. It submits therefore that there is no validity in the Union's claim for a pay increase.The 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 21st March, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This group of workers has not received a pay increase since 2008.
2. The Workers have significantly increased their productivity and have undertaken a greater volume of security duties.
3. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking a pay increase to reflect the level of commitment and co-operation shown by the Workers, in addition to the level of additional duties carried out by them for a number of years.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This group of Workers are on a rate of pay higher than the industry norm. The Employer therefore does not see merit in the Union's pay claim.
2. The Employer has maintained this rate of pay and access to overtime for these Workers despite enduring a period when the industry pay rates suffered a decline.
3. The Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede the Union's pay claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court recommends a pay increase of 2% for 12 months commencing 1 April 2016.
It is clear that managing the pay of this group will in the future present challenges to both sides. Accordingly, in an effort to assist the parties, the Court further recommends they engage over the lifetime of this agreement with a view to concluding a pay determination framework for this group taking into account pay developments in both the Security Sector and Industry generally.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement on aspects of such a framework they may refer that matter back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th June 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.