FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STT RISK MANAGEMENT (REPRESENTED BY ASK HR SOLUTIONS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marié Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Application of Special Allowance to Depot Security Guards.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the Employer in relation to the application of an allowance to static security guards based in the Employer's depot. It is the Union's claim that the Claimants involved in this dispute have an entitlement to be paid an allowance that is currently payable to the Employer's Dynamic security guards who are required to carry out their daily duties on the Luas. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that the allowance which was a subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation, is not applicable to the Claimants.
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 25th August 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the original pay claim which was the subject of LCR 21144 was made on behalf of all security staff including the Claimants in this dispute.
2. The Union is seeking the application of the special allowance to the Claimants.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that LCR 21144 applied to Dynamic security guards only.
2. The Employer asserts that the Claimants were not the subject of LCR 21144 and accordingly have no entitlement to its terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties is the application of Labour Court Recommendation LCR 21144 to four Security guards who carry out security duties at the Depot.
The Union's position is that these staff were included in the original claim for an increase and should have the special allowance set out in LCR 21144 applied to them on the same basis it was applied to their colleagues. It is the Union's contention that prior to the transfer to the Employer in 2013 Depot security staff would work on the Luas from time to time. They accept it has not occurred since 2013 but indicated they were available to work on the Luas if required. The Union advised the Court that currently two Dynamic security guards from the Luas are covering two vacancies in the depot and it was their understanding that they continued to receive the allowance.
Management’s position is that while initial discussion with the Union did include Depot Staff the only issue that was referred to the Labour Court in LCR 21144 was the quantum of an interim allowance to be paid pending re-classification of this group of staff under the ERO for the security industry. The agreement to seek re-classification only applied to the dynamic security guards assigned to the Luas because of the inherent dangers in the duties they carried out. The Employer informed the Court that staff working on the Luas received advanced training which was not provided to the Depot security guards. Since STT took over in 2013 Depot guards had not been assigned to the Luas and they did not require them to be interchangeable with the Luas security guards. They informed the Court that the two security guards covering the Depot vacancies on a temporary basis are not currently receiving the allowance.
The Court having read the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day notes that LCR 21144 clearly links the allowance as an interim measure to the reclassification of the workers. It is not disputed between the parties that the reclassification was to apply to security staff working on the Luas lines to reflect the nature of the duties they carry out. As the cohort of workers covered by this claim are not party to the reclassification process the Court finds that LCR 21144 does not apply to them.
The Union’s claim is accordingly rejected.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
31 October 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.