INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Rates of pay.
2. The Company is engaged in the operation of Department Stores in Dublin City and countrywide. The issue concerns approximately 6 security guards employed in the Henry Street shop. Rates of pay and terms and conditions are negotiated by the Union and the most recent agreement on rates of pay is dated November, 2000.
In addition to the basic rate for security guards, after completion of a four month probationary period, a further payment is made, this is called a "plus payment". The current security staff employed prior to March, 2001, started on the agreed basic rate and did not progress to the plus payment until they completed four months probation.
In March, 2000, the Company employed a security guard on a higher basic rate. The Union claim that the worker should have received the additional "plus payment" and that the new rate applied to him was a new starting rate and should be applied to all other staff. As no agreement could be reached locally, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 21st of August, 2001.
As no agreement was reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of September, 2002, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of March, 2002.
3. 1. The Company introduced a new rate in March, 2001.
2. The Union are looking for fair and equitable treatment for all security staff.
3. Staff with longer service have been disadvantaged by management.
4. By introducing new rates of pay without consultation or negotiation with the Union, the Company have undermined industrial relations within the store.
4. 1. The security staff appointed before March, 2001, were on the correct rate of pay.
2. Economic factors forced the Company, at the time, to examine the criteria that pertained to the application of the pay structure.
- 3 It was pointed out to the worker that at the interview that he was being offered the "plus payment" from the start date and that he would not be receiving a further "plus payment" at the end of his probation.
- 4. If the claim is conceded, it would have significant knock-on effect to all other staff grades in the store.
5. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under clause 11 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does not accept that the decision of the Company to bring forward "plus payment" in the case of one individual provides a basis on which the Union's claim could be sustained.
Accordingly , the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th March, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.