Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90226 Case Number: LCR12915 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for (a) the introduction of service pay, (b) the introduction of roster pay, and (c) an increase in basic pay of #25 per week.
Recommendation:
6. Under the terms of the P.N.R. the Court is precluded from
recommending concession of all the claims presented by the Union
since they are cost increasing. The Court considers however, that
there is a reasonable case for examination and review of the
claimants conditions of employment on the expiration of the
present agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90226 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12915
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for (a) the introduction of service pay,
(b) the introduction of roster pay, and (c) an increase in basic
pay of #25 per week.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 following the loss of bank contracts Brinks Mat
Ireland Ltd underwent a major rationalisation programme, which
included a reduction in the number of workers employed and in
wages. In 1987 Brinks Mat amalgamated with Allied Couriers to
form the present Company. Following LCR No. 12122 of 2nd
December, 1988 the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) was
implemented in the Company with effect from 1st July, 1988. The
Company obtained the city banks contracts from 5th February, 1990
and the Union is seeking improved pay and conditions on the basis
that increased flexibility and productivity is required by the
workers as a result of this. The Union also states that in 1986
the Company verbally stated at local level, that if the bank
contracts were secured in the future the workers pay and
conditions would be improved to their pre-rationalisation stage.
The Union's claim was rejected by the Company on the basis that
the claim was in breach of the PNR and that fourteen extra workers
were being employed to work on the new contracts. On 9th January,
1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd January,
1990 at which no progress was made. By letter of 8th February,
1990 the Union detailed its claim as:
- the introduction of a service pay scale,
- the introduction of roster pay,
- an increase in basic pay of #25 per week for all grades.
3. On 30th April, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 30th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1986 at local level the Company gave the workers a
verbal assurance that if the Company managed to secure the
bank contracts at some future date, the workers' pay and
conditions would be improved to the level that applied prior
to the rationalisation. The reintroduction of the bank
contracts with effect from 5th February, 1990 has meant that
the workers have had to provide additional flexibility and
productivity to ensure the success of these. The Union's
claims should be conceded as the workers deserve to be
properly rewarded for their input to the continued viability
of the new contracts. The Union rejects the assertion that
the claims are unjustified in the context of the PNR. The
claims relate to additional flexibility and productivity and
can be justified in the context of the new contracts secured
by the Company and the additional revenue generated by this.
2. Prior to the rationalisation in 1986 the workers were in
receipt of a service pay scale. Service pay would be a method
of recognising and rewarding the workers for the service they
have given to the Company over the years. The work involved
is both hazardous and stressful and years of being exposed to
these pressures should be rewarded by a properly constituted
service pay scale (details supplied to the Court). Service
pay is a recognised norm in most employments and prior to the
1986 rationalisation the Company clearly recognised and
implemented the principle of service pay. It is only logical
that now, when the Company has reconstituted itself in the
market place, the principle of service pay should be
recognised again. A service pay scale should be an integral
part of the workers overall payment package and the claim for
the reintroduction of a scale is very reasonable.
3. The claim by the Union for the reintroduction of roster
pay is an attempt to bring the workers overall remuneration
package back in line with the pre 1986 situation, when the
workers received a weekly payment that was based on a starting
time between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. This payment was
designed to compensate the workers for many aspects of
flexibility and co-operation extended to the Company. As the
Company has acquired new contracts and has consolidated its
trading position, the reintroduction of roster pay would be a
recognition by the Company of the vital role the workers have
played in the successful operation of these contracts.
4. When the Company rationalised its operation in 1986, the
workers retained were done so strictly on the basis that they
accepted a reduction in wage scales. Since then the Company
has on a number of occasions informed the Union that it needed
to recover from the problems experienced during the
rationalisation and the Union has continually attempted to be
reasonable in its approach to wages and conditions. The
workers feel that with the more favourable trading position of
the Company, they should secure an increase in pay. Although
the Union raised this matter in December, 1989 in an effort to
resolve the matter before the Company took on new work and
contracts management has not made any offer. The workers
input into the success of the Company over the last three to
four years has been considerable and this should be recognised
in tangible terms. The workers have taken on the additional
workloads brought about by the new contracts since 5th
February, 1990 without any improvements in their wages and the
claims should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union's claims are in direct breach of the present
wage agreements with the Company. In a letter to the Company
in January, 1989 the Union acknowledged acceptance of the
terms of the PNR and in a further letter sent in February,
1989 the Union stated that the workers accepted that the
claims made and covered in LCR No. 12122 were debarred under
the terms of the PNR (details supplied to the Court).
Therefore, the Union is well aware that the present claims are
in breach of clause 4 of the PNR.
2. The city banks contract which the Company took over in
February, 1990, is only a small part of the overall banks
contract that the Company once had. With its wage agreement
in place the Company was able to quote with confidence for
this contract and it cannot now go back to its customers
looking for higher prices to offset this new claim. If it
did, given the competitive nature of the cash in transit
business, both the contract and the new jobs created would be
lost. In addition, in accordance with the job creation
intentions of the PNR the Company has employed 14 new workers
to carry out the additional work, and the number of vehicle
crews has risen from 37 to 51, an increase of 37.8%. In all
the circumstances, the Union's claims should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Under the terms of the P.N.R. the Court is precluded from
recommending concession of all the claims presented by the Union
since they are cost increasing. The Court considers however, that
there is a reasonable case for examination and review of the
claimants conditions of employment on the expiration of the
present agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___15th___June,____1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman