INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Assignment of four Security Personnel on Wyeth Site.
2. Chubb Ireland employs over 1,200 staff in the Security and Fire Protection/Detection business. Approximately 800 of these are employed in the Chubb Security Personnel Division. The Company provides security on a contract basis at various locations throughout the country. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two of its Members for compensation in relation to Supervisory posts at a Client Site, Wyeth Medica, Clondalkin, which they contend they were entitled to, but to which they were not appointed. The Company rejects the claim and contends that the individuals concerned worked in the role of Supervisor under one of two separate contracts on site and upon cessation of their particular contract Supervisors were already in place under the other contract. The Company further contends that staff working on one particular contract have no entitlement to claim specific posts under different contracts.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to The Labour Court on the 18th July, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th September, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3.1. Supervisory positions were filled internally by officers trained by the two Supervisors party to this claim. The positions were not advertised in accordance with Company procedure thus denying personnel who were interested in advancing their career the opportunity to apply. As there was no competition for the new roles the Supervisors concerned were of the belief that they would be continuing in their role in the completed Wyeth buildings.
2. The two Supervisors concerned feel that they have been unfairly passed over for a position for which they are more than qualified and already held. The Supervisors will be at the loss of €50 per week as a result of the unnecessary and unfair selection by the Company of other personnel to fill the positions.
4. 1. There were two separate contracts with two separate clients in operation with their own respective seperate security teams. The Wyeth security officers with additional supervisory responsibilities were in situ long before the construction officers, whose contract was with a firm called Jacobs Engineering, made claim to their roles. This matter was not raised until the decision by Jacobs Engineering to reduce their security needs which was always going to happen as it was a construction site.
2. All Chubb security guards are hired on the bases that their workplace and times may vary. This is standard throughout the industry and no one security officer had a contractual right to work on either site. The Company has been more than fair to the individuals concerned and has continued to pay both of them the Supervisor's allowance to date. The Court is requested to consider this as the Company feels it does not have a case to answer to.
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of two workers who claimed that they should have been appointed to supervisory roles based at Wyeth Medica on completion of the construction site at that location when Chubb Security attained the security contract with Wyeth Medica.
The workers concerned held supervisory roles while they were employed on the construction site when Chubb Security held the security contract with the construction Company. The supervisory positions, which are the subject of this claim, became available in the Wyeth Medica plant some months prior to the completion of the construction phase.
While this issue has been in dispute the Company continued to pay the Supervisor's Allowance to the two Claimants on a personal-to-holder basis.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the retention of the two workers concerned on the supervisor's rate for the period since construction ceased coupled with the Company's offer to pay the sum of €500 to each of the Claimants in full and final settlement of this matter is reasonable and should be accepted as such by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th October 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.