Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89131 Case Number: LCR12347 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SECURICOR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of 18 patrolmen for payment for the servicing of automatic telling machines (A.T.M.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company accepts that these
duties of the Patrolmen are new and not specifically covered by
the 1983 Agreement.
In light of the uncertainty of the future of these duties raised
by the Company at the Court hearing, the Court recommends that the
parties resume direct negotiations with a view to reaching an
equitable settlement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89131 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12347
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SECURICOR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 18 patrolmen for payment for the servicing
of automatic telling machines (A.T.M.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company secured additional work from the banks which gave
it responsibility for providing first line maintenance and the
replenishment of selected A.T.M.s. The patrolmens' duties were
re-organised to enable them to service the A.T.M.s. The Union on
behalf of the patrolmen, served a claim on the Company for an
increase of #20 per week for their involvement with the A.T.M.s.
The Company rejected the claim for payment for the work on the
grounds that it was already provided for in a 1983 Company/Union
Agreement. The Union contend that this is not the case. In a
letter dated the 31st January, 1989 the Union threatened to
withdraw co-operation from the A.T.M. work, unless the workers
contribution was recognised. Agreement could not be reached at
local level, and on 2nd February, 1989 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences took place on 9th February and 20th February, 1989 but
no agreement was reached. On 20th February, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 29th March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers involvement with the A.T.M.'s is not covered
by the Agreement concerning patrolmen which was entered into
by the Union and the Company in 1983 in respect of patrol
staff. The Company's contention that the work with the
A.T.M.'s was covered by this Agreement is simply not tenable.
2. The new source of income to the Company was brought about
directly by the workers involvement with the A.T.M.'s. New
practices and skills are involved which require additional
flexibility and technical knowledge. The workers agreed
without prejudice, to allow themselves to be trained in the
servicing of the machines. The workers involvement in the new
work area puts a lot of pressure on them, given their prior
commitment to other assignments.
3. The Union's claim for a #20 per week increase represents
an approximate increase of 12% for the patrol staff. The
claim is based on the fact that bank officials who have been
attending to the work now being forced on the patrolmen were
receiving #35 per hour or part thereof for each individual
call-out to an A.T.M. that had broken down. The bank
officials also receive #17.50 for any time spent at the
call-out after one hour plus a 54p per mile travel allowance.
The Union contends that for an unlimited number of attendances
at these breakdowns a 12% claim is most reasonable. It should
be noted that the workers are involved in escorts and first
line servicing of these machines in marked Securicor vehicles,
which could cause them security difficulties.
4. The Union believes that the workers concerned in this
dispute have displayed great reasonableness and patience,
since the matter has been ongoing since July, 1988. The
Company has at no stage made an effort to recognise in any
form the workers input to the success of their involvement
with the main banks in the A.T.M. operation. Management did
confirm to the Union during the course of the conferences that
the banks had complimented Securicor on the workers approach
to their work on the A.T.M.'s. The Union asks the Court to
uphold its claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Uner the terms of its 1983 Agreement with the Union the
servicing of A.T.Ms forms part of the patrolmens work. The
1983 Agreement is the cornerstone of the Company's survival
plan for the patrol section. It was recognised by both
parties to that Agreement that unless the Company updated its
operation to meet the changing demands of its customers then
there was no future for the patrol section. To meet the
changing demands of its clients the Company required full
flexibility and co-operation from its staff. This was agreed
to by the Union and the flexibility was paid for in the 1983
Agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company also asserts that under the terms of its
current P.N.R. wage agreement it was agreed by the Union that
no further cost increasing claims would be made on the
Company. Accordingly any concession of the Union's claim
would be a direct breach of the P.N.R., which took effect from
1st January, 1988 and its previous agreement which was
effective from 1st October, 1987 to 31st December, 1988
(details supplied to the Court).
3. At present the Company has only a small share of the
A.T.M. market. Any large once off increase in pay would
undermine Securicor's attempt to establish itself in this
market, and in the long run would be contrary to the interests
of the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company accepts that these
duties of the Patrolmen are new and not specifically covered by
the 1983 Agreement.
In light of the uncertainty of the future of these duties raised
by the Company at the Court hearing, the Court recommends that the
parties resume direct negotiations with a view to reaching an
equitable settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
17th April, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.