Three security companies have brought a High Court challenge aimed at setting aside a ministerial order that would see many working in the industry receive increased pay.
The action is over a new Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Security Industry, approved by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in April, and due to come into force from September 1st next.
The action has been brought by Dublin-based Top Security Ltd, and Morbury Ltd and Las Security Ltd, located in Dunleer, Drogheda, in Co Louth.
Their action is against the Minister; the Labour Court, the Security Industry Labour Committee, Ireland and the Attorney General.
Process
The companies, represented by Martin Hayden SC, with Eoin O’Shea and instructed by solicitor Tom Casey, claim the process which resulted in the order being formulated was flawed.
They claim the process tends to support the interests of big employers has produced an anti-competitive outcome, and tends to reduce employment in the industry.
They claim the market should set the rates for security operatives which would permit different rates to be set for differently qualified operatives working in diverse employment situations.
Such ministerial orders deal with issues including minimum hourly rates for security operatives, deals with overtime calculations, sick pay scheme, and the minimum number of employment hours to be offered.
The order was approved by Minister, following a recommendation from the Labour Court. Its basis was formulated by the Security Industry Joint Labour Committee (JLC), made up of trade union representatives and members from larger security firms, employing thousands of workers.
That Committee is chaired by an officer of the Workplace Commission. The order applies to all security operatives and employers, whether they are represented on the JLC or not.
Any breach of the order could result in a possible criminal prosecution, it is claimed.
Counsel for the applicants said they were not represented on the JLC for the industry and they claim the entire process lacks transparency.
No reasons have been given to his clients why the proposals were accepted, counsel said.
Earlier this year the applicants made submissions to the Labour Court, for the attention of the Minister, when the Labour Court was considering the JLC’s proposals. No reasons were given for the non-acceptance of their submissions, resulting in the Minister being unable to take their views into account when arriving at his decision, it is claimed.
Respondents
The companies learned from a press release in late April the government intends to sign a new ERO which will see security personnel’s pay increased.
They claim the ERO lacks legal clarity, and that the respondents have acted unlawfully in adopting it.
In judicial review proceedings, they want an order quashing the Minister’s decision to approve the proposed order as well as the Labour Court’s decision to adopt the JLC proposals.
They claims the failure to provide them with reasons amounts to a breach of their rights to fair procedures and that the respondents have acted outside of their powers.
Permission to bring the challenge was granted, on an ex-parte basis, by Mr Justice Anthony Barr on Monday. The judge granted a stay on the order, pending the outcome of case, with liberty to the respondents could seek to have the stay lifted. The matter was made returnable to November.
