FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BIDVEST NOONAN (ROI) LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - 25 SECURITY PERSONNEL (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Change from weekly to fortnightly pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute refers to a change in the frequency of pay from weekly to fortnightly for 25 security personnel This 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 11 March 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place in a Virtual Court room on the 26 June 2020.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union says that the Employer showed a total disregard for its' members and the financial hardship caused to them whenitimposed the unilateral changefrom weeklyto fortnightly pay. The Union contends that its' members were treated very unfairly by their Employer.
2. The Employer did not,as contended by the employer,put arrangements in place to support the workers financially in the transition to fortnightly pay and consequently those workers suffered enormous financial hardship.
3. The Union argues that its' members are low paid workers and therefore could not manage the burden that this change imposed on them.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.It is the Employers' position that it is a well-established principle that there is no inherent right to frequency of pay.
2.The Employer needs to have all staff on the same payroll system and say that it is vital to the efficient running of business. The security industry is an industry with very little profit margin.
3. The rationalefor the change was clearly explained to the staff and their representativesand staff were offered loans in order to support the transition which none availed of. In addition, when implementing the change in pay frequency the employees were informed well in advance of the change to allow the employees to make any arrangements regarding payments with their banks and creditors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
There is no dispute between the parties that prior to a transfer of their employment to the employer before the Court, the 25 persons involved in this dispute were paid on a weekly basis. One individual is contended by the Trade Union to have been paid in this manner for a periodoften years and the remainder of persons for periods ranging from one to four years.
The frequency of pay rate was changed to a fortnightly interval upon the transfer of the business and the employment of the individuals to the employer before the Court. There was no agreement between the Trade Union and the employer in relation to this matter.
The Court notes the submission of the employer which has emphasised the scale of the organisation and the fact that all of its many employees are paid on a fortnightly basis. The employer has submitted that it would be impossible to maintain the claimants in this case on a weekly pay cycle.
The Trade Union has emphasised that the members affected are relatively low paid part time workers for whom a change of this nature is financially challenging and disruptive and difficult to manage in many respects.
The Court has considered the matter on its merits and does not accept that the change in frequency of pay for workers such as those represented in this claim is a minor inconvenience which could, as the employer has suggested, be seen in the same light as for example a change in pay day in a week or fortnight for example.
Having regard to fact that the change at issue was implemented unilaterally, its significance at the time for the workers concerned and also having regard totheemployer’s submission that the change was absolutely necessary from an operational point of view; the Court considers that the workers involved should be compensated for the effect ofthe change upon them at the time of transition. The Court recommends that the employer should pay to each employee a voucher tothevalue of €250 on the understanding that such a voucher is within revenue guidelines for payment without tax liability attaching.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
02 July 2020______________________
CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.