INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PROVINCIAL SECURITY SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Non-implementation of proposals of an Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission on pay increase.
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim for a 35% productivity related pay increase on behalf of approximately 85 security officers employed by Provincial Security Services at the Intel complex, Leixlip. The claim was rejected by the Company and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th March, 2001. Proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer which, inter alia, provided for a 20% pay increase, and were to be recommended for acceptance by both parties, were subsequently rejected by the Company. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 1st June, 2001 The dispute was received in the Court on the 1st June, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 21st June, 2001.
3. 1. The workers concerned have contributed to Intel's cost containment plans by maintaining high security standards, despite a reduction in the number of security officers from 120 in 2000 to 85 currently. The savings secured by the cutbacks in security staff are far in excess of the cost of implementation the 20% pay proposal and, as such, is self financing.
2. In recent years the claimants have been required to undertake a wide range of extra duties and responsibilities but their basic rate of pay has not improved.
3. In the past security officers relied on extra shifts to supplement low basic pay. These have now virtually disappeared as a result of a change in the security requirement.
4. The rates of pay of security officers have disimproved relative to rates of pay of contract security staff with similar service and performing the same or like duties.
5. The compromise proposals worked out at the LRC and agreed by all parties involved as fair and reasonable represented a recognition by the Company as well as the Union that the claimants had a very strong case for a productivity related pay increase.
4. 1. The Company's revocation of the LRC proposals was only done after lengthy consultation with its financial advisors. The Company would be expected to absorb the full cost were the proposals to be implemented. As a result the Company would operate at a major loss.
2. There has been a significant world-wide downturn in the technology market recently. It is of serious concern to the Company as it provides services primarily within the technology sector. The customer has introduced a major cost reduction programme on foot of this downturn. The market is fiercely competitive and, in the prevailing circumstances, the Company cannot afford to place any contract in jeopardy by seeking increased charge out - rates from clients.
3. The Company's pay and conditions are in line with many competitor companies and superior to others. It has implemented the terms of national wage agreements and the 2% increase on foot of the revision of the PPF.
4. Having regard to its current rates of pay, conditions of employment, the commercial realities within the technology sector, and the specific site, the Company cannot concede the claim.
The Court accepts that both parties negotiated in good faith at the Labour Relations Commission and agreed proposals to resolve the issues in dispute. The Court further accepts that extraneous matters intervened to cause serious difficulties in implementing what was agreed.
The Court believes that the terms proposed at conciliation represent a reasonable compromise and should be accepted by all parties. It is recommended that the parties
should meet, as a matter of urgency, to explore how the Company's current difficulty might be overcome and the outstanding element of the proposed agreement implemented as quickly as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.