An estimated 16,000 workers in Ireland’s security industry are in line for a pay increase after High Court proceedings halting the rise were resolved.
The proposed pay increase was halted last August after three security companies secured a High Court injunction preventing the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment from commencing an Employment Regulation Order (ERO) to increase pay for security workers.
The injunction restrained the Minister from introducing the proposed new employment regulation order providing a new minimum rate of pay of €12.50 an hour and an increased minimum of €12.90 per hour from February 1st last.
The three security companies, represented in the action by Eoin O’Shea, prosecuting, and instructed by solicitor Tom Casey, also secured permission on behalf of Top Security, Morbury and Las Security to challenge the Minister’s decision and the proposals of the Labour Court.
In their proceedings the applicant had sought to have the ERO, which they alleged was flawed, set aside.
The proceedings were also against the Security Industry Joint Labour Committee, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The proceedings were opposed by the respondents.
There had also been protests against the action by security workers and their representatives.
The matter had been listed before the Court on several occasions, and the matter was expected to go hearing later this year.
However, at the High Court on Friday afternoon Mr O’Shea told Ms Justice Niamh Hyland that the dispute had been settled. All previous orders made in the case, including the injunction, could be struck out.
Counsel said that as a result of the settlement the Minister was now free to sign the ERO, which would result in pay rises for workers across the security sector in Ireland.
Counsel said that separate but related proceedings brought by security companies in 2015 could also be struck out with no order.
No further details of the settlement agreement, which is understood to be confidential, were given in open court.
Ms Aoife Carroll, defending, said that her clients were consenting to the orders.
Following the application from Mr O’Shea the judge agreed to strike out the proceedings.
The court previously heard that the three companies are involved in the provision of security and guarding services in Ireland.
They had argued that Industrial Relations laws provide for the establishment of Joint Labour Committees to provide machinery for submitting proposals to the Labour Court for the adoption by the Minister of an ERO.
It was alleged that such committees were composed of union representatives and, on the employer side in this case, mainly members from the larger security firms to promote harmonious relations between workers and employers and to avoid industrial unrest.
It was alleged that a Joint Labour Committee, when it has formulated proposals for a regulation order, was bound to publish notice of that order and seek written representations within 21 days of its publication.
They alleged that this had not happened in respect of the ERO for the security sector.
They alleged that they had twice asked for a copy of the Labour Court’s recommendations to the Minister, but had not received any before a press release by the Minister last year announcing the ERO for the sector.
It was alleged that the relevant legislation provides that an employer who did not pay the minimum rates as laid out in an Employment Regulation Order or apply other employment conditions, such as for holidays and overtime, was guilty of a criminal offence.
The three companies had alleged that the Joint Labour Committee process supported the interests of the big rather than the smaller employer, produced an anticompetitive outcome and tended to reduce employment in the industry by encouraging clients to turn to cheaper technology solutions and fewer static guards.
The number of companies offering static guards has declined in recent years, they had argued.