INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
ISS FACILITY SERVICES
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. (I) Sick pay and death service benefit (ii) Holiday pay.
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to (i) sick pay (ii) death in service (iii) annual leave. The Union's position is that sick pay and death in service entitlements are greater for those employed in Dublin and the Union is seeking parity for those members employed in provincial locations. The Union also claims that holiday pay is based on a 39 hour week, whereas the actual hours worked are 42 per week. The Union is seeking the additional 12 hours pay ( 3 hours x 4 weeks) for its members.
Management contend that the different terms and conditions prevailed when other Companies were acquired to form what is now ISS Facility Services. It further contends that it has fulfilled its obligations on the transfer of undertakings regulations. In addition, if the annual leave issue has not been resolved it will be rectified without further delay.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th July 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th October, 2012.
3 1Sick Pay and Death in service entitlements are far greater for those workers employed in Dublin by comparison to those employed in provincial locations. This is unfair and cannot continue. The Union is seekingparity between the two groupsof workers.
4 1 Management has met its obligations under the Transfer of Undertakings regulations. The terms and conditions that applied in other Companies prior to being acquired to form ISS Facility Services have had to be retained in compliance with the legislation.
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of security officers employed by the Company in the West of Ireland for parity of terms and conditions with security officers employed in the Company's branches in Dublin. The Union specifically referred to annual leave entitlements, death in service benefit and sick pay entitlements.
The Company informed the Court that different terms and conditions of employment for different groups of staff have evolved due to a number of takeovers which have occurred in the period from 2004 to 2009.
It would appear that the present dispute came about when the Company attempted to harmonise identified non-pay issues into a new Employee Handbook.
The Court notes that the annual leave issue was resolved between the parties and the Company gave a commitment to pay the workers involved 12 hours pay.
The Court accepts that due to the employer's legal requirements under the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003, the terms and conditions of employees must be preserved in a takeover situation. This has given rise to a variety of different terms and conditions of employment within the one Company. The Court is satisfied from the assurances given by Management that this accounts for a perceived difference between the West of Ireland officers and the Dublin staff and not because of any disparity in terms, accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
The Court notes that the Company gave an undertaking to re-examine the potential costs involved in applying the more beneficial death in service scheme to officers up to age 65 years of age.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th November, 2012.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.