Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88724 Case Number: LCR12122 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims on behalf of 45 workers employed as cash-in-transit security personnel for: (a) current wage round increase, (b) improvement in overnight allowance, and (c) the introduction of a service pay scale.
Recommendation:
10. The Court, having considered the claims as put forward by the
Union, their submission and evidence in the Court, and the
submission and evidence of the Employer, does not recommend
concession of the claims, as the Court is of the view that
concession of the claims would be in breach of the PNR as it was
accepted by both sides that of its nature it is cost increasing.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88724 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12122
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of 45 workers employed as cash-in-transit
security personnel for:
(a) current wage round increase,
(b) improvement in overnight allowance, and
(c) the introduction of a service pay scale.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a new company which was formed in 1987 as a
result of the amalgamation of Brinks Mat Ireland Limited and
Allied Couriers Limited. The Company presently employs 51 people
and is primarily engaged in the security and courier industries.
3. The Company/Union wage agreement expired on 31st June, 1988.
The Union lodged various claims by letter dated 27th May, 1988 for
the forthcoming wage round. Following a number of meetings
between the parties at local level the position was as follows:
Company's offer, the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(PNR) effective from 1st July, 1988.
4. The Union agreed to consider acceptance of the terms of the
PNR subject to Management addressing the two outstanding issues of
its claims, i.e. an improvement in the overnight allowance and the
introduction of a service pay scale. The Company rejected these
elements and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on 12th July, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on 9th August, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
21st October, 1988.
Overnight Allowance
Background:
5. At present the Company operates a run to Cork which
necessitates the crew staying there overnight. The workers are
paid 16 hours at basic plus two hours at time and a half. Their
accommodation and meals are paid for by the Company and in
addition each worker receives #10 each subsistence payment. The
Union are seeking to increase this payment to #20 plus payment of
four hours overtime.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6.1 The amount paid at present does not in any way compensate the
workers for being stuck in Cork from 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m. in
the afternoon after they have finished work. In fact it
actually costs them money to go to Cork on behalf of the
Company. It is grossly unfair to expect the workers to hang
around their accommodation or watch television on an
overnight duty without adequate compensation.
6.2 The workers are required to work through their lunch hours
and it is for this reason that they are paid the overtime.
6.3 The Union's claim for an improvement in the overnight
allowances package is designed to encourage on-going
co-operation with the Company in respect of the trip by
enhancing it to such an extent that will make it attractive
and worthwhile from the workers point of view.
Service Pay:
Background:
7. Prior to 1986 the workers employed by Brinks Mat enjoyed a
service pay scale. In September of that year the service pay
scale was eliminated as part of a major rationalisation programme.
The Union are now seeking to have this scale re-introduced as a
fundamental condition of employment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8.1 Given the nature of the work carried out by the workers
concerned which is hazardous in the extreme it is only fair
and reasonable that the Company acknowledge the dangers which
these workers are exposed to by the introduction of a service
pay scale.
8.2 The establishment of a service pay scale is the norm that is
present in all aspects of Irish industry. For the Court to
recommend concession of the claim would be to continue this
norm.
8.3 A service pay scale was part of the remuneration package
prior to 1986. If prior to that date the Company recognised
the principal of a service pay scale it should do so now
particularly that it has reconstituted itself and
consolidated its position in the market place by merging with
Allied Couriers Limited.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9.1 The Company cannot concede any further cost increasing claims
because under Clause 4 of the text of the PNR it was agreed
that no further cost increasing claims will be made on
employers.
9.2 Given the Company's serious financial problems (details
supplied to the Court) any further cost increasing claims
would seriously damage its ability to survive within a very
competitive market. Also any additional costs would prohibit
the Company from recruiting additional staff, which is the
main objective of the PNR. The Company is determined that
the trade off between the monetary terms of the plan and the
increase in overall employment will manifest itself in Brinks
Allied by the recruitment of additional staff.
9.3 The Company is operating in a very demanding market place,
cut throat competition ensures that costs are high and
margins are low. Despite its financial difficulties, the
Brinks Allied staff are the highest paid cash in transit
crews in the country (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court, having considered the claims as put forward by the
Union, their submission and evidence in the Court, and the
submission and evidence of the Employer, does not recommend
concession of the claims, as the Court is of the view that
concession of the claims would be in breach of the PNR as it was
accepted by both sides that of its nature it is cost increasing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
2nd December, 1988. ---------------
MD/PG
Deputy Chairman