FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Claim for a duty allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute was previously the subject of Labour Court Recommendation LCR21485. Following on from this Recommendation it was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission in order to come to an agreement as to how the Recommendation should be implemented. As agreement could not be reached at the Conciliation Conference, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12 June 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 July 2019.
3.UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Union argued that the rate of the site allowance should be €1.50 per hour in addition to the current basic hourly rate.
2. The Union argued that the allowance should only be for current duties that are carried out by its Members.
- 1. The Employer argued that claim for €1.50 extra per hour was unrealistic and disproportionate to the claim originally made by the Union.
2. The Employer argued that any allowance should be for all security duties including current duties and any future duties the employer may determine.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not propose to re-open the previous recommendation in respect of this matter.
The purpose of this Recommendation is to build on the previous Recommendation in assisting the two parties to reach an outcome that is acceptable to them.
In this regard the Court notes that there are three points of contention between the parties, as follows;
1 Quantum of allowance
2 What is covered by the allowance?
3 Retrospection
The Court recommends that the Employer pay to the members of the Union tax-efficient vouchers to the value of €500 per person, in lieu of retrospection, and that the parties engage further on the question of the quantum of the allowance.
Upon successful conclusion of those discussions, a further payment of tax-efficient vouchers to the value of €500 per person should be paid by the Employer. If the discussions conclude in advance of the next tax year, these vouchers should be paid on the first day of the new tax year, otherwise they should be paid upon agreement being reached.
The Court notes that the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission is available to the parties to assist in any discussions between them and that, if agreement cannot be reached, the matter can be referred back to this Court.
On the question of what is covered by the allowance, the Court notes the concerns of both parties regarding the issue of the x-ray machine. However, the Court understands that there is a collective agreement between the Union representing the workers employed directly by the Airport and their employer that makes this issue somewhat unlikely to arise. It is a matter of fact, acknowledged by both parties that, if the issue does arise, there is nothing to prevent the Union from pursuing a claim for additional remuneration. It would, therefore, be unhelpful, and improper, for the Court to offer any observation in advance of such a hypothetical situation as to whether or not any such claim would have validity, should it ever come to pass.
It is a normal feature of agreements that involve additional remuneration that they include a clause to provide for co-operation with normal, ongoing change and the Court would expect such a clause to be included in any agreement between the parties on this matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
FMc______________________
1st August 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fiona McCarthy, Court Secretary.