Three security companies have successfully resolved their legal action aimed at setting aside a ministerial order that would have seen many working in the industry receive a pay increase.

As a result of a settlement agreement reached with the State, it has been agreed that an employment regulation order for the security industry that was approved by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment last April is to be quashed.

It was also agreed the Labour Court’s earlier decision to adopt the order is to be quashed.

It has further been agreed that the ministerial order, which had been due to come into force last September, is to be remitted back to the Labour Court for a fresh consideration.

The action was brought by Dublin-based firms Top Security Ltd and Morbury Ltd along with Las Security Ltd, which is in Dunleer, Drogheda, Co Louth.

The type of ministerial order challenged covers matters including minimum hourly rates for security operatives; overtime calculations; sick-pay entitlements; and the minimum number of employment hours to be offered to those working in that sector.

It was designed to replace one that had been in place since 2017.

The three firms had claimed the proposed order lacked legal clarity, and that the respondents had acted unlawfully in adopting the new employment regulation order.

They also claimed the entire process which brought about the order that was the subject of their challenge lacked transparency.

The case was briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Charles Meenan in the High Court on Tuesday.

Process ‘flawed’

The court was told that on consent the various orders could be made, and the defendants are to pay the applicant’s reasonable legal costs.

In their judicial review proceedings against the Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment, the Labour Court, the Security Industry Labour Committee, Ireland, and the Attorney General claimed that the process which resulted in the order being formulated was flawed.

The companies represented by Martin Hayden SC, appearing with Eoin O’Shea and instructed by solicitor Tom Casey, had claimed the process utilised to formulate the order favoured the interests of big employers.

They also argued the proposed order would produce an anti-competitive outcome that would have reduced employment in the industry.

The three applicants had argued that 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.

The order challenged by the three firms had been approved by the Minister following a recommendation from the Labour Court.

That order, it was claimed, was formulated by the Security Industry Joint Labour Committee (JLC), which is made up of union representatives, and on the employer side members from larger security firms that employ thousands of workers.

Such orders, when approved, apply to all security operatives and employers, whether they are represented on the JLC or not.

Any breach of an approved order for the sector would have resulted in a possible criminal prosecution, it was claimed.

The JLC made recommendations regarding the proposed ministerial order.

It was then sent by the JLC to the Labour Court, which recommended to the Minister that the new order be approved, they claimed.

The companies claimed they were not represented on the JLC.

They 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, they claimed, resulting in the Minister being unable to take their views into account when arriving at his decision.

Despite making submissions about the proposed order the three companies learned from a press release in late April that the Government intended to sign a new employment regulation order which would have seen the pay of security personnel increased.