INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. 2% local bargaining under Partnership 2000 (P2000).
2. The Union is seeking the application of the 2% local bargaining clause under Partnership 2000. The Union claims that the 2% being sought is a integral part of P2000 which is being conceded by an increasing number of companies in both the private and public sector.
The Company offered the payment on a phased basis subject to the Union agreeing certain offsets, including the introduction of credit transfer, assurance re continuity of service, the consolidation of local agreements into a composite document and a no further cost increasing clause to include sick pay. The Company claims that it is presently operating on very tight margins and a low level of profit on high turnover.
The Union rejected the Company's offer and claims that the 2% should be paid without any strings attached.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 2nd of September, 1999, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of September, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 9th of November, 1999.
3. 1. The 2% being sought as provided for in Partnership 2000, is being conceded by most companies in both the private and public sector.
2. The Union is not prepared to accept the increase on a phased basis as proposed by the Company.
3. Most of the unionised companies in the security business have already paid the local bargaining increase. These include all the large multi-national companies which are in direct competition with Securicor.
4. The Company is a profit making business and should concede this modest claim.
4. 1. The Company is prepared to implement the local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000 but needs to find ways of off-setting these costs.
2. The Company operates in a very competitive market and has to keep costs down or it will lose out to its competitors.
3. The local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000 provides that due regard be given to the cost involved and to the ability of the firm/industry to meet these costs. Agreement, therefore, provides for cost off-setting measures and phasing arrangements where necessary.
4. The Company is seeking certain operational changes which it believes is not unreasonable in return for payment of the 2% under the local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000.
The Court notes that while the employer has stated the 2% increase claimed is significant in terms of overall costs, they are not pleading inability to pay.
In these circumstances and having regard to the understanding between the parties to Partnership 2000 on the application of the relevant clause, the Court recommends that the increase be paid from the due date.
The Court further recommends that the Union enter into immediate discussions on the items raised by the Empolyer which were referred to in the Employer's submission to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1999.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.