Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8894 Case Number: LCR11830 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GROUP FOUR SECURITIAS IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the manning levels of the control room at the Company's central station.
Recommendation:
10. On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties and
noting the undertakings given by the Company in the matter of
safety and their confidence in their system of one-man operation
in the Control Room, the Court recommends that the claimants
accept the proposals put forward by the Company at Conciliation on
10th December, 1987. The Court further recommends that the
position should be reviewed by the parties in March, 1989.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8894 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11830
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GROUP FOUR SECURITIAS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manning levels of the control room at
the Company's central station.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the contract security business. It
provides both static guarding and mobile patrol services to client
companies. In addition the Company operates an intruder alarm
division as part of its business.
3. There are four static guards employed as control room
operators. The control room operates as a 24 hour communication
centre where all telephone, alarm, and radio calls are
acknowledged by the control room staff. The calls are received
from customers alarm activations, and periodic calls from both
static and mobile security officers.
4. In October, 1987, the Company informed the Union that it
intended to introduce changes in the operation of the control
room, the main change being the introduction of a computer
terminal. Also around that time one of the Company's major
clients altered its contract to provide for a telephone answering
service which would be handled by the control room (details
supplied to the Court).
5. The Union submitted a claim for a second worker to be on duty
in the control room on a 24 hour basis (up to now there has been
only one controller on duty in the central station). The Company
rejected the claim and proposed -
(a) to install a computer capable of handling all telephone
calls;
(b) that all telephone calls would be handled by a switchboard
operator Monday to Friday 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.;
(c) to allow an overlap of one hour between the hours of 6.00
p.m. and 7 p.m. Monday to Friday (peak period) and
(d) to pay compensation of £60 nett on the basis of taking on
the telephone answering contract to the four controllers.
6. Meetings at local level failed to resolve the issue and the
matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court on the 1st of December, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 10th December, 1987. At the Conciliation Conference
the Union modified its claim to 2 workers manning 12 hours a night
Monday to Friday, and 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday. The
Company indicated that in addition to its previous offer it would
be prepared to examine the workload after the computer system had
been fully implemented. The Company also agreed to some other
concessions -
(a) Agreed that the last 15 minutes of the overlap hour
could be worked on a flexible basis.
(b) Introduce a complete access control system to the
Company's Head Quarters, which would eliminate the need
for the control room operator to allow access into the
building.
(c) Improve safeth procedures in the event of the control
room operator becoming ill whilst on duty.
(d) Indicated that it would be prepared to examine the work
load after the computer system had been fully
implemented.
7. The parties, however, failed to reach a resolution and agreed
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 28th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. All the other Alarm/Security companies in the city
operate a two man manning in their control rooms.
2. The Group 4 control room is a self-contained unit within
the premises. Once the control room staff are in location it
is almost impossible for anyone on the outside to gain
access. It can be easily understood why the Union has been
pressing for two man manning, because a worker on duty in
the control room alone, if taken ill or in the event of a
fall would be totally isolated and unable to contact anyone
outside and access could not be easily gained from the
outside. Also, the fact that a controller is working alone
could mean that in the event of that person being
incapacitated then other workers' lives may be put in
jeopardy not to mention the massive responsibility to the
Company's clients.
3. The Union has quantified the periods when it is believed
two man manning would be a crucial part of the control room
operation. For reasons of efficiency, safety and ongoing
co-operation of the workers with technological improvements,
made by the Company to the control room the Union contends
its claim is most reasonable under the circumstances.
4. The technological changes made to the control room in
recent months have dramatically enhanced the Company's
position in respect of one of its major customers because of
an additional service now being provided. This could not
have happened without the workers' support of the Company's
plan. This support manifested itself in the workers' full
co-operation with the changes to the control room pending the
outcome of final negotiations and a Labour Court
recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The work load in the control room does not warrant a
second worker. In fact, the opposite is the case as, over
the last 2 years, business has decreased due to the economic
climate and the fierce competition that exists within the
Security Industry.
2. The investment in a fully computerised system has
dramatically reduced the work load in responding to alarm
calls (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company has introduced safety procedures for the
control room operators in excess of those provided for static
security officers. In addition, the control room is in both
telephone and radio contact on an on-going basis which also
reduces the risk.
4. To double man the control room, would cost the Company an
additional £60,000 per annum, at a time when the Company is
experiencing reductions in income due to terminations of
contracts and its inability to obtain new contracts.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties and
noting the undertakings given by the Company in the matter of
safety and their confidence in their system of one-man operation
in the Control Room, the Court recommends that the claimants
accept the proposals put forward by the Company at Conciliation on
10th December, 1987. The Court further recommends that the
position should be reviewed by the parties in March, 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________________
29th April, 1988
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman