FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS ALLIED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Introduction of new Security Vehicles and related matters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a cash-in-transit (CIT) Company which provides services to a number of commercial clients. There are predominantly two aspects to the business - the ATM cash delivery side and the collection and delivery of money to and from clients. The dispute concerns approximately 80 workers.
There are three main issues in dispute (1) Use of Dutch vehicles (2) A 'drive away' policy and (3) Claim for payment of wages lost as a result of the dispute. There were six other items raised at conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) namely:- commitment to normal industrial relations procedures, operation of dye and smoke boxes without keys, introduction of "Fluiditi", introduction/updating of an operation manual, introduction of two-man crews for ATM's and Company to discuss future pay and conditions after resumption of work. However, at the Labour Court hearing there was broad agreement between the parties on these six issues.
In mid July 2004, the Company had outlined that, due to the increasing number of attacks on its vans, it would have to introduce a number of procedures. One of these was the purchase of 4 Dutch vehicles which, the Company claimed, were more secure than vans then operating. The Company provided training with the assistance of Dutch drivers and security specialists. The Union claims that it learned on the 28th July, 2004, that in the event of an armed attack, drivers were expected to drive-away from the scene of the crime and leave the crew member outside the vehicle. As a result, the ATM crew refused to operate the vehicles. The workers were also unhappy with other aspects of the new vehicles. The workers were asked to operate the new vehicles under protest for one month to allow a health and safety review. However, the Union claims that when it could not get agreement to this in writing, the CIT crew refused to work on health and safety grounds.
The dispute was referred to the LRC and a number of conciliation conferences took place in August, 2004. On the 11th August, 2004, crew members in Clonshaugh voted in favour of strike action. Following a final conciliation conference in the LRC on the 16th of August, 2004, at which agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th August, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute was caused by the Company trying to introduce the Dutch vehicles and the 'drive-away' policy without proper consultation or use of agreed procedures. The action taken was in breach of Sections 8, 9, and 15 of the Company/Union agreement.
2. As a result of the Company's policy not to follow correct procedures, workers have not been allowed to resume normal working. As a result they have lost out on a number of weeks' pay.
3. The action taken by the Dublin workers to refuse to operate the Dutch vehicles (resulting in their refusal to be allowed back to work ) is at odds with other staff in country areas who are allowed to operate without the Dutch vehicles and the 'drive-away' policy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's vans have been the subject of an unprecedented number of attacks by criminals. Nearly one third of the Company's work force have been affected by such attacks.
2. The Company believes that the Dutch vehicles are more secure than the vans currently being used. Security and technical specialists from Holland evaluated systems and procedures to minimise the associated risk.
3. The Company needs to implement the 'drive-away' policy . Brinks operates the policy in a number of countries and in all cases it has shown that removing the vehicles from the scene reduces the severity and duration of the attack.
4. Since the 29th of July, 2004 employeesbeen engaged in unofficial action and have been unavailable for work. As a result, no wages are owing to the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the submissions and other information put before it by the parties and, being mindful of the security sensitivities in this area, makes the following recommendation: -
Dutch Vehicles:
These vehicles should be introduced and worked on an interim basis for a 4-week period, during which time discussions should take place between the parties regarding the modification to similar standards of the Company’s existing fleet of 33 vehicles.
Drive - Away Policy:
The introduction of such a policy should be deferred pending further evaluation over a 4-week period from resumption of work, which should include research and consideration of all information available from the Company’s employment in other jurisdictions
Failing agreement on, or problems with, implementation, the parties can jointly refer the matter back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Commitment to normal industrial relations procedures and practices:
The Court is satisfied that the existing procedures have been infringed by both parties during the course of this dispute. The Company/Union agreement exists for the benefit of both parties and also of good industrial relations. Both parties should recommit to observance of this procedure in items of both its content and spirit.
Operation of dye & smoke boxes/“Fluiditi”/ introduction of two-man crews for ATM’s:
The Court notes that there is agreement in principle between the parties on these issues. Matters of operational detail to be discussed at local level within the 4-week period already referred to.
Introduction /Updating of Operations Manual:
The Court notes that there is no disagreement in principle between the parties on this matter and recommends that an agreed draft should be completed within the 4-week period already referred to.
Discussions on future Pay and Conditions:
The Court recognises the right of both parties to raise and discuss matters such as these following a resumption of normal working.
Other:
In the context of a full return to normal working, co-operation with the terms of this recommendation, a guarantee of industrial peace within the terms of both the Company/Union agreement and of “Sustaining Progress” and no victimisation of any involved party by either side, the Court recommends that a figure of €750 be paid to each worker involved in the dispute after acceptance of this recommendation and two weeks after normal working resumes.
The Court urges both parties to accept this recommendation and to end a damaging dispute which endangers the livelihood of all parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th August, 2004______________________
CON/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.