FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICE GROUP (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payments of increases under Part 2 of Towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employes approximately 7,000 staff and the six Claimants are employed by it on a security contract at Shannon Airport. Since 2000 the Claimants are paid a "composite" hourly rate of pay for each of the 48 hours they work while other Workers on the same site are paid at the old Joint Labour Committee (JLC) rates for the industry. Those Workers got rate increases in line with both phases of the second part of the Towards 2016 Agreement. The six Claimants got no increase. The case before the Court concerns a claim for increases of 3.5% and 2.5% under the second part of Towards 2016 dating back to 2009 for the six Claimants. The Company consider that a claim for pay rate increases dating back to 2009 is unrealistic given the current economic climate..
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd November, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the interest of equitable treatment the Claimants' rates of pay should be increased retrospectively to the due dates under Towards 2016 Agreement.
2. The Company has the financial capacity to meet the terms of this claim and restore what is a fundamental part of the terms and conditions of the Claimants' employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The hourly rates of pay in excess of of the industry norm are causing the Company serious problems regarding its competitiveness.
2. The Company's financialsituation dictates that any pay rate increase, other than that required by law, is not appropriate at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of six named Security Officers at the I.A.A. facility in Shannon for a 6% pay increase in two phases:- 3.5% from 1st January 2009 and 2.5% from 1stJune 2009. While it was accepted that the claim was not before the Court pursuant to Clause 1.11 of the Pay Agreement Associated with the Review and Transitional Agreement of Towards 2016, the Union contended that the claim was lodged following the failure of the Company to pay the terms of the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement.
The employees involved in the claim had transferred to Federal Security Solutions in October 2008 and in July 2009 that Company went into Receivership at which point the business was transferred to Noonan Services Group.
The Union argued that each of the Claimants was originally an employee of Group 4 Securitas and their pay rates were set by an agreement negotiated by SIPTU in October 2000 which introduced a composite pay rate incorporating overtime premia and these rates have increased over time by the terms of various national wage agreements. The Union submitted that the Claimants are entitled to the increases as other workers on the same site have received the increases in pay.
The Company stated that the pay arrangements of employees on site varied between those on JLC rates, those with composite rates (the Claimants) and those on personal rates. However, it disputes the Union’s contention that the Claimants have an established differential over the JLC rates since the “composite” rate was introduced in 2000 and contended that concession of the claim would seriously affect its competitive position.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that the Claimants’ terms and conditions of employment were preserved on transfer to Noonan Services Group in July 2009. Furthermore, the Court notes that the 2000 Agreement, while establishing a composite rate which in monetary terms was over and above the JLC rate at the time, was more a feature of attracting staff to the business with a composite rate for working 48 hours per week rather than establishing a differential over the JLC rate.
The Court notes that in the meantime an alignment of rates has evolved over time, albeit not by agreement, to the point where the Claimants and other Security Officers employed on site are now in effect on the same rates of pay.
In all the circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th June, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.