FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of new technology and working arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 38 security staff employed by the Central Bank at the Currency Centre in Sandyford and Head Office, Dame Street. The Bank has introduced a new security system in Sandyford. and changes in Dame Street. The Union's claim is for an increase of 20% in return for implementing the new system. In June, 1998 an interim payment of 4% was made to the workers concerned. An independent assessor (Mr. Sean Healy) was engaged to make a final recommendation and his report recommended a further increase in basic pay of 8% which included the bringing forward from March, 2000 of the 2% increase under Clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000. The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 20th of May, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of June, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 17th of June, 1999. The Court visited the site and inspected the work of the claimants on the 17th of August, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Healy report was rejected by the workers concerned because the offer made was insufficient to compensate for the very substantial levels of change required with the operation of the new system (details supplied to the Court). While the assessment was being undertaken not all of the new equipment was operational. The card access system and the petards system was demonstrated to the assessor by security staff who had no training in the operation of the equipment.
2. With regard to the overall increase the 12% offer falls far short of other recent increases to other staff for significantly less upgrading of their work practices. Also 2% of the proposed increase was "poached" from Clause 2 of Partnership 2000. The workers will require considerable computer and keyboard skills to operate the new automated system. These were not necessary heretofore. Such skills updating and familiarisation will necessitate special courses and training in electro automation and related technology. This technological transformation in equipment, operation and practice, warrants an upgrading in status for operating staff which should be reflected in a pay scale commensurate with the extra qualifications and skills appertaining to the new situation.
3. Having regard to the amount of computerisation involved and the amount of work upgrading expected to be taken on board by, for the most part, a mature workforce which was originally employed under completely different conditions to those prevailing today, the Union considers the offer of 12% falls far short of the 20% which the Union feels is justified. Because of the continuing disruption caused by contractors' work, the Union expects that this figure will be backdated to the date of the 4% interim award.
4. The industrial action being taken is insignificant. It relates only to workers not making themselves available for training courses on their days off. It does not affect the efficient operation of the security system. The action has been suspended following a request from the Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On rejection of the Healy report, the workers concerned stated that if their demands on pay were not met, industrial action would commence. Limited action commenced on the 21st of April, 1999. That action is continuing still, against agreed procedures, and in breach of Partnership 2000. It also reneges on the terms of Clause 2 of the 1996 Agreement on Co-operation with Change (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Bank is very concerned that a group of staff charged with overseeing the operation of the Bank's internal security facilities, particularly in the Currency Centre, should invoke industrial action before agreed procedures had been exhausted. Moreover, the Bank had believed that the 1996 Agreement, in which the security staff agreed to co-operate with new procedures and equipment, would prevent this happening. In return for the co-operation, staff were paid the 3% under Clause 3 of the PESP.
3. The Bank considers that the level of award recommended by the Assessor is very high particularly since the changes do not include any reductions in manning levels or overtime. The Bank's security staff receive rates of pay and conditions of employment which are at or above the most attractive in the security industry. However, the Bank has committed itself to the assessment process and had understood that the Union did also.
4. The Union has sought an improvement on the pay recommendations even though the security staff were fully involved in the assessment process and had the scope to fully contribute to that process. They are taking action on the basis of a very selective interpretation of agreements reached with other groups in the Currency Centre who are neither valid nor traditional comparators for the security staff. The overall settlement recommended by the Healy report stands comparison with settlements made of the higher productivity increases and re-engineering of work practices required in the production areas of the Currency Centre.
5. The recommendation arising from the Healy report was based on the full participation by both the Bank and security staff in the assessment process. Accordingly, the Bank believes that the absolute terms of the pay award must stand. If the Bank was seen to improve on pay rates recommended by an objective assessment because of industrial action, it would jeopardise orderly industrial relations and collective agreements with other groups.
6. The Bank would request the Court to recommend that the Healy recommendation should be accepted by both sides together with immediate discussions on a pay analogue for future pay reviews and that the 1996 Agreement on Co-operation with Change be upheld.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has seen the new security system in operation in the course of a work inspection at the Bank's Currency Centre at Sandyford.
The Court is satisfied that the operation of the new system involves additional duties for security staff and requires significant up-skilling in the use of new technology. Having regard to the level of change required the Court recommends that the proposals of the Assessor be modified as follows:-
1. The increase of 8% recommended should be exclusive of the 2% due
under Clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000. The 2% increase should be paid
on the date due under that agreement (March, 2000).
2. The 8% increase should be paid with effect from the date on which the
interim award was implemented.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th August, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.