INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CASH IN TRANSIT INDUSTRY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Interim productivity claim.
2. The Union is seeking an interim productivity payment for its members employed as security guards with Securicor Security Services, CP Security Limited and Brinks Allied. The Union claims that security guards employed in the industry are under valued and underpaid for the work they perform. It wants an interim payment of a £1.00 per hour which the Union claims is justified on the basis of past productivity which they claim has not been adequately paid for.
Management rejected the Union's claim and stated that past productivity has been paid for in full. The industry was not prepared to pay any kind of interim payment. It states that the industry would not be in a position to pass on any increases to client companies because of the competitive nature of the business. Management claims that to operate as a cartel by setting prices would be illegal under the Competition Act.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 1st of July, 1999 and the 20th of July, 1999 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of August, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th of November, 1999.
3. 1. The Union is seeking a salary increase on the basis that past productivity has not been adequately paid for.
2. The current rates of pay in the industry do not properly compensate workers for the responsibilities and risks involved in performing their duties.
3. The companies involved in this dispute have not paid the 2% local bargaining increase provided for under Partnership 2000.
4. Failure to adequately address this claim will lead to a decline in the calibre of staff applying for positions within the industry.
5. The cash in transit industry, and their client customers, are profit making enterprises and can afford to meet this claim between them.
Individual Company submissions were made to the Court, these have been summarised into the following points:-
4. 1. The cash in transit industry operates in a very competitive market. It must keep costs down or it will lose market share to its competitors.
2. All productivity entered into in the past has been paid for in full.
3. The Union is seeking a total increase of £2.50 per hour which is equivalent to a 45% increase in the basic rate of pay which is totally unsustainable.
4. The industry and the Union are already well-advanced in local negotiations which will achieve productivity and result in a substantial wage increase for all concerned.
The Court has considered the various Company submissions and the submission made by the Union in this dispute. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an interim payment on the following basis:
- overall Company agreements are in the process of negotiations;
- the Court does not agree that the claim in respect of past productivity is a valid one.
Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the best way forward is for the parties to conclude their respective negotiations as outlined to the Court. The Court recommends that if these negotiations are not completed by the end of February, 2000 that the outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.