INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Retrospective payments of basic pay increase.
2. In May, 2000, the Company introduced new rates of pay for Static and Patrol Guards. The Dublin based employees received the new rates immediately.
In June, 2000, the Union wrote to the Company seeking the application of the new rates to its members in the Limerick branch. The Company stated that if an outstanding issue regarding the forty eight hour week contracts was resolved it would have no difficulty in applying the rates immediately. This was unacceptable to the Union.
On the 21st of September, 2000, in an effort to resolve the issue, the Company proposed to increase the rates of pay for the workers concerned with effect from the 1st of September, 2000, and that a forty hour week contract would apply to the Static Guards.
In October, 2001, the Company made an offer based on a formula agreed with the Union in Cork which allowed for a retrospective payment to the 5th of July, 2000, and payable to current employees only. The Union rejected both proposals.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of April, 2002. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of June, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Negotiations in relation to pay and conditions of employment are conducted on a national basis. Therefore, there is no reason why workers in the Limerick branch of the Company should be placed at a disadvantage in relation to their rate of pay.
2. The workers concerned should not be treated less favourably than their colleagues in Dublin. They should receive the new rates of pay retrospective to May, 2000.
4. 1. The Company advised the Union that the increase was being applied on a branch by branch basis and that different dates would apply.
2. The Union should accept the Company offer that the rates would be paid from the 5th of July, 2000, and payable only to existing staff and that all staff are employed on a basic forty hour week.
It is noted that the claim now before the Court was served on the 23rd of June, 2000. Furthermore, there was never any commitment to applying the new rates from a common date throughout the country.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court regards the Company's offer as reasonable and recommends that it be accepted on the basis on which it was offered. This includes adherence to the current agreement which provides for a standard working week of 40 hours.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th June, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.