FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PROVINCIAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was founded in 1960 and provides a range of security services throughout the country. The Company took over the security contract for the Wyeth Biopharma site in Grange Castle in August, 2006. The Union's made a claim in January, 2007, for a pay increase on behalf of 10 workers (4 Supervisors, 4 Controllers and 2 Drivers) and is for past and present productivity on the basis that the workers' duties go beyond the responsibilities of normal security officers. The Union cited a number of comparators who pay allowances in support of its claim, which is as follows:
Supervisors - €50 per week (they currently receive an allowance of €30)
Controllers - €40 per week
Patrolling Drivers - €30 per week
At a meeting on the 23rd February, 2007, the Company rejected the claim as being cost-increasing and, therefore, precluded under terms of T16.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st March, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the period of employment at the Wyeth site the workers have embraced major changes as the security operation was transformed from basic building site security to the higher technology-based security system currently in operation.
2. In the security industry it is standard for the grades of workers concerned to receive an allowance on top of basic pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company fully complies with national agreements, up to and including T16. Concession of the claim is precluded by Clause 1.4 of the private sector pay agreement.
2. The duties carried out by the workers concerned do not differ in any substantial way from other Company locations. There is no justification for an increase in rates over and above those provided for by the national agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Union told the Court that the allowance paid to Supervisors had not been reviewed in over 5 years. Furthermore, to substantiate its claim it cited higher rates of pay being paid to the Company’s workers performing similar duties, with similar responsibilities in another organisation with similar high tech specifications.
The Court notes that the Company accepts and recognises that the comparator cited by the Union is a comparable comparator for the purposes of pay.
Therefore, as the working arrangements in the comparator organisation attract higher rates of pay for the Company’s workers employed at that site, then the Court recommends that the Company should address the imbalance and make the necessary adjustments to bring them more in line with those paid in the comparator organisation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd May, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.