INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
GROUP 4 FALK SECURITY
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Rates of pay.
2. The Company is in operation since 1968 and employs approximately five hundred security officers at various locations throughout the country. It has branch offices in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Athlone.
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of its members in Athlone which would give them the same rates of pay as their colleagues in Dublin.
Management rejected the Union's claim. The Company states that it agrees rates of pay on a local basis reflecting the market conditions in these areas which can vary depending on location.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, following local discussions, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 24th June, 2002 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th August, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 27th February, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The workers in Group 4 Athlone receive the lowest hourly rates of pay within the organisation.
2. The Union wants the pay rates of staff brought into line with other Group 4 locations in respect of pay, pensions and sick pay benefits.
3. It is not acceptable for management to claim that different rates of pay and enhanced conditions of employment apply depending on where the site is located.
4. The variations in pay and conditions of employment which exist in Group 4 in Athlone are unfair, unjust and not sustainable.
5. It is only a matter of time before members outside of Dublin, Cork and Limerick decide to take matters into their own hands in an effort to achieve a more equitable arrangement.
4. 1 The security industry is a highly competitive one which is not well regulated. The Company supports the introduction of regulatory licensing and is fully supporting the development of the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) for the security industry.
2. There is no standard rate of pay in the security industry. It depends on the location and the market conditions in each region.
3. The Athlone branch has lost a number of existing contracts to competitors who are offering much lower pay rates and is under pressure to hold onto some of its present contracts against lower cost competitors.
4. The Company has been able to achieve higher contract rates for Dublin, which has allowed for pay rates in the Dublin region to reflect this.
5. This is a cost increasing claim and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
It is noted that the claim as presented to the Court is different to that originally served on the company. The Court also notes the company's assertion that since they did not know that the claim had been modified they have not been in a position to address it in its present form.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should re-enter negotiations on the claim as modified. Negotiations should also take place on the introduction of a pension and a sick pay scheme.
These negotiations should commence as soon as possible after the acceptance of this recommendation. If agreement is not reached within 3 months from the commencement of negotiations the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th March, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.