INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DELTA SECURITY LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR268/99/CW.
2. The worker was employed on security duties at the Ilac Centre. In 1998, the worker and another supervisor were charged with assault on a member of the public. The worker was transferred from the Ilac Centre to another site and was reduced in rank from supervisor to security guard.
The worker claims that his rate of pay was also reduced from £6.10 per hour to £4.65 per hour. He claims that his pay should not have been reduced.
The Company states that it had no alternative but to transfer the employee to other employment. The worker's rate of pay is in line with the rate of pay for other security guards employed by the Company.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 29th of June, 1999. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts £200 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th of July, 1999 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 2nd of September, 1999.
3. 1. The worker accepts his demotion from supervisor to security guard. However, his hourly rate of pay should have remained unaltered.
2. It does not stipulate in his contract of employment that his hourly rate of pay can be changed.
3. The worker has suffered serious financial loss as a result of the reduction in his hourly rate of pay.
4. 1. The worker,following a serious incident, the details of which were made known to the Court, and a subsquent request from the client customer for his removal, was moved in accordance with the terms of his contract. He reverted to the rank of security guard and received the appropriate rate for that grade.
2. He was given a written contract which clearly outlined his conditions of employment.
3. Another supervisor at the Ilac Centre was also demoted to security guard duties and his hourly rate of pay adjusted accordingly.
The Court is satisfied that the full facts were not made known to the Rights Commissioner when he made his recommendation.
Having heard all the evidence presented the Court does not uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation of an award of £200.
The Court finds that the employee should not get any award and, therefore, rejects the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th September, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.