FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : C.P. SECURITY LIMITED/BELL COMMUNICATION (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Introduction of change and claim for compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation by the Control room staff for changes in work practices.
Bell Communication (a sister company of C.P. Security) operates a control centre in Collins Avenue East, Dublin. The main activity is alarm monitoring but it is also involved in the following: an emergency motor and domestic assistance service, paging/message handling services, a remote video surveillance service, risk management and key holding. The emergency services and video surveillance services were introduced in 1992-94.
In 1994, the workers involved sought a meeting with Management to discuss the following issues: (1) introduction of new service, (2) layout of control room, (3) training periods and (4) a wage increase. The first 3 items were resolved locally but the wage issue remains.
A number of meetings took place at local level but the wages issue remained unresolved. In December 1995, the workers refused to handle any new services or to accept training for new services. The Company had offered to pay the 3% productivity clause under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) but this was refused by the workers.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 29th April, 1996. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12th June, 1996 in accordance with Section 26 (1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is the leading operator in the alarm monitoring service in the country. It is also the only company which provides the additional emergency and surveillance services. The workers have co-operated with the introduction of these additional services without any formal training or adequate information on the services that they were expected to supply. At the same time, there was a reduction in staffing levels.
2. The workers withdrew their co-operation for the first time when the Company introduced another substantial increase in work late in 1995. This included transferring the entire Cork control room operation to Dublin (which will save the Company £60,000 - 70,000 annually), a new electronic vehicle tracking system and additional emergency service to car insurance customers. The workers deserve to share in the additional profits which the Company will make.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The workers involved are on a par with the highest paid in the industry. With the addition of the 3% offered by the Company, their wages would be the highest.
2. In 1991, Bell Communication offered a new 7 point pay structure which was accepted by the workers. Clause 8 of this agreement stated: "All new technologies and business types are to be catered for in this agreement. In future no further claims for compensation will be made now or in the future". This agreement still holds.
3. Competition in the industry has intensified and prices have continued to disimprove. The Company must continue to introduce new services if it is to remain competitive. The 3% offer is the best that the Company can make in the present circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is of the view that the Company's offer is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and, accordingly, recommends that the Union accepts it.
The Court, however, accepts that the changes envisaged are giving rise to fears in the workplace and, therefore, further recommends that when all changes are in place and working for at least 6 months, the parties should examine their impact.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
2nd August, 1996______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.