Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88170 Case Number: LCR11800 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION;ICTU ROAD PASSENGER GROUP |
Claim on behalf of seven cash porters for an increase in pay.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having regard to the duties and responsibilities of
the claimants, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88170 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11800
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
ICTU ROAD PASSENGER GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of seven cash porters for an increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1986, the Unions lodged a claim for an increase in
pay for the seven rehabilitated employees who work as cash porters
and security staff in the Company's Central Cash Counting Office
(Airgeadlann) in Donnybrook Garage. The claim was based on the
fact that the workers concerned handle vast sums of cash each day
and are required to be very highly security conscious both on and
off the job. Following a rejection of the claim by Management,
the Unions referred the case to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 2nd November, 1987. No progress was made at a
conciliation conference on the 22nd January, 1988, and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 25th March, 1988.
I.C.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are former bus drivers and conductors who
through ill-health have been re-allocated to this area, to
what are classified as rehabilitated jobs. The Company is
fortunate to be able to recruit in this manner as the
trustworthiness of the employees has already been established
in their previous grade. The claimants work in an office
which has a substantial daily cash flow and it can be
appreciated that in this day and age the chances are slim of
recruiting outside employees into such an environment without
sooner or later being subjected to a security breach. This
risk factor is in itself justification for a higher basic rate
of pay.
2. Comparisons can be made with bank porters who have an
eight point scale from £150.66 to £179.15 basic and Securicor
drivers whose pay ranges from £142 to £171 basic (the
claimants' weekly basic is £130.38). These grades are paid
this basic on the basis of their responsibilities with cash.
The claimants also have this responsibility but in addition,
they also have a good degree of manual work as they handle
large amounts of coinage throughout the day. In addition,
they work beside an "Observer Airgeadlann" who does not handle
cash as they do but merely observes the counting of it and
authenticates cash shortages when they occur. This man is on
a basic rate of £137.25.
N.B.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a very high degree of responsibility on all who
work in this area. Security must be of a very high standard
and the behaviour of staff both inside and outside the area
has to be of the highest order. In addition, the claimants
operate under what can only be termed as jailed conditions
because from the time they enter the building in the morning
it is locked and they haven't the freedom of movement which is
normally enjoyed by workers. On these grounds alone the claim
is justified.
2. The Court is asked to fully recognise the value of the
services provided by this group of workers and to recommend
that the least they should have are the rates applying to bank
porters, who do not have to take on the same onerous tasks
that the claimants do.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. All the employees with the exception of one who came
from the Maintenance Grades are ex bus drivers/conductors who
because of ill health could not carry out the duties for which
they were employed. Under normal circumstances had the
Company not found alternative employment for the staff
concerned they would have been paid off on the grounds of ill
health under the terms of the Board's Welfare Scheme. The
staff concerned do not enjoy good health and the Company is
aware of this. As a result, normal work performance is not
expected of them. Before accepting the rehabilitation jobs
the staff concerned were well aware of the rates of pay they
would have in their new positions. These rates are comparable
with those of conductors and drivers (details supplied to the
Court).
2. By the nature of the work it is very rare that any of
the staff concerned would work eight hours per day. It is
more likely to be in the region of five and a half hours to
six hours with late starts, early finishing and long breaks
although overtime is available on a regular basis to all the
staff concerned and is availed of by most. The rehabilitation
jobs in the cash office were always the most sought after for
those seeking positions other than the one for which they were
employed. Gross annual earning will range between £8.150 and
£12,480 for those employees for the year ending March, 1988.
3. There is very little if any responsibility involved in
any of these positions. The staff concerned are under
constant supervision and do not have to work on their own
initiative. The clerical staff are responsible for all monies
which go through the office, one quarter of which is coin.
4. The duties of cash porters have decreased in the last
number of years. The amount of coin counted daily has
decreased more than half, yet despite this the Company has
continued to employ the same level of staff. It is also fair
to say that had the Company decided not to provide work for
the rehabilitated staff, the staffing requirements would be
considerably less.
5. The Unions will claim that the positions filled by these
employees are comparable to similar positions held by
employees in the banks who earn higher wages. However, this
is not the case. The positions held in the banks are not
rehabilitation positions, they are regular positions which are
advertised in the normal manner. Cash porters and security
staff in the banks have much more responsibility and
frequently work un-supervised with large amounts of cash.
Bank staff, in any event, are paid wages and salary levels
higher than those enjoyed by staff employed in Dublin Bus.
6. The clerical staff employed at Airgeadlann, who are held
responsible for the cash they count, have a lower basic weekly
wage than the present rate enjoyed by the cash porters. Also,
none of the clerical staff employed at Airgeadlann are paid
any extra monies by way of bonuses etc. for the location in
which they work.
7. The Unions will also argue that the staff concerned are
always working in the confines of the location and that they
are in a position of trust insofar as any information which
could be provided by them to outsiders could be a threat from
a security point of view. The Company's argument would be
that all its staff regardless of the position the employee is
engaged in, should always be upright and honest and nothing
less is expected from any of the staff.
8. Staff, other than bus crews are expected to work in the
location which they are employed irrespective of the
circumstances. All the locations in Dublin Bus have
substantial amounts of cash going through them and it is
accepted that there is always a threat on the security front.
However, the company are satisfied that the Airgeadlann Office
is well located, at least 100 yards from the roadway and is
indeed in less danger from a security point of view compared
with the other Bus Garages. Indeed, since it opened over
twenty years ago there has never been an attempted break-in at
the location.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having regard to the duties and responsibilities of
the claimants, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
15th April, 1988 -----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman