INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
GROUP 4 FALK SECURITY
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation 17440.
2. In February, 2003 a dispute between the parties concerning rates of pay was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation. In LCR 17440 the Court recommended as follows:
".........the parties should re-enter negotiations on the claim as modified. Negotiations should also take place on the introduction of a pension and sick pay scheme...............If agreement is not reached within three months from the commencement of negotiations the matter may be referred back to the Court".
Subsequent discussions between the parties on the issues of pay, pension and sick pay schemes were not successful and the Union requested the Court to issue a definitive recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Athlone on the 21st October, 2003.
3. 1. The Company has not made a serious effort to address the issue of pay rates. The company has different rates of pay for workers in Cork Limerick and Dublin and the claimants who are Athlone based are the lowest paid in the employment.
2. In addition to the companies listed in the Union's original submission as having national rates of pay the following companies can be added to that list Chubb and Securitas. If these companies can operate this system Group 4 Falk Security should also be able to do so.
3. The Company's proposals of 4th June, 2003 were rejected as they did not address the Union's claims.
4. 1. The Company cannot afford to increase its rates of pay over and above those provided under the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) for the industry. Competition in the security industry is intense and the Company will be seriously disadvantaged if it is forced to increase pay rates beyond those currently applicable. Over the next twelve months there will a 9% increase in basic pay plus the introduction of rostered overtime being incorporated into holiday pay.
2. The Company made an effort to address the issues in dispute through its proposals of 4th June 2003 but the Union did not engage in negotiations, other than to reject them outright.
The Court accepts that the Union's claim has merit in that it is reasonable for the claimants to aspire to the same rate of pay as is currently applicable to their colleagues doing similar work in other centres. However, having regard to the current circumstances of the Security Industry the Court is satisfied that the company would be unable to absorb the additional pay costs without endangering employment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Union should not pursue its claim at this time and that the parties should review the position at the end of 2004, in light of the circumstances of the employment at that time.
The Court further recommends that the introduction of a pension scheme be brought forward to 1st June, 2004 and that the introduction of a sick pay scheme be considered in the context of the current discussions at the JLC for the industry.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th November, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.