FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - 4 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Payment of an Acting Up Allowance for Security Operatives undertaking the Role of Superintendent.
BACKGROUND:
2. 2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 1 October 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 November 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union state that the allowance was introduced to bring the payment of Security Officers Backing Up Superintendents close to parity with the Superintendents for identical work and had been paid for the previous fourteen years.
2. The Union state the payment should be reinstated immediately and retrospectively paid to the date of the unilateral decision of management to reduce this payment.
3. The Union state the payment under the Employer's formula does not adequately compensate for the level of their Members responsibility.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer states that at the time of the introduction of the Backup Superintendents, the additional allowance applicable was confirmed as a split of 10% which was approved by the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
2. The Employer states it is unclear when the allowance morphed into a 25% payment but once they became aware it was required to correct it and apply the government approved rate from the end of January 2019 following discussions with the Union.
3. The Employer states they approached staff reps to discuss the possibility of the Backup Superintendents undertaking additional duties for which they would seek the Department of Education and Skills approval for an increased allowance. The Union response indicated that staff were not willing to undertake any additional duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties relates to the calculation of an allowance paid to four Security Operatives who provide back up to Security Superintendent’s. The allowance has been in place since 2005 and contains two elements. The dispute relates to the second element of the allowance which is paid after the back-up Operative has covered for the Superintendent for five full days. It is the Unions contention that this is a fixed allowance that has not varied over the years. It is the Employer’s contention that the allowance was always a 5% of weekly basic pay allowance payable after five days of cover but that at some stage this had had morphed in to 5% x 5 days giving a 25% allowance, paid after five days. The Employer did not dispute that the allowance had not attracted any increases over the years. It is the Employer’s submission that they only became aware of the error in calculation in 2018 when a number of services were amalgamated into what is now Estate and Facilities. The net effect of the error in calculation meant that the back up person was getting paid more than the fulltime Superintendent. The parties had engaged on the issue but were unable to resolve it. Neither party could locate a copy of the original agreement, but it was not disputed that the four Workers concerned had been receiving the higher amount for about fourteen years.
The Court having read the parties submissions and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day recommends that the Employer pay each of the Workers a sum of €2,500 and that the Worker’s accept that they are now being paid the correct rate i.e. 5% of weekly basic pay for five full days cover. This Recommendation is in full and final settlement of this issue.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
TH______________________
4 December 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.