FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Remote Monitoring - Security
BACKGROUND:
2. An agreement was reached in August 2001 between the Bank and the Union in relation to a number of work practices relating to service personnel. This agreement included the monitoring of up to ten external premises by security personnel based in the bank's headquarters. The case before the Court concerns interpretation of the agreement as to whether remote monitoring allows for access control or not.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th November, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Remote monitoring is inclusive of access control in view of the fact that access control is an expected and established duty of security personnel within the bank.
2. Remote monitoring including access control is currently in place in head office and is operated by security personnel.
3.The bank agreed to pay a salary increase of 12%, which was backdated to March 2001, to security staff based in head office in respect of the agreed work changes.. This is over and above the provisions contained in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Remote monitoring and remote access are two distinctly separate things and the latter was not discussed or agreed. There is no reference to remote access in any documentation.
2. The manning of ten external locations cannot be compared in terms of workload to the manning of head office, which is located in one area.
3.All sections of the support service grades contributed cost reductions to offset the cost of the award and feel that there is an imbalance between what was sought from them and other grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submission made by the parties. While the Union has argued that the work in relation to monitoring and access control is not manageable, the Management projections for access control usage seems to be minimal.
The Court recommends that the proposals for monitoring and access be operated by the employees on the clear understanding that should the usage of access result in unreasonable work requirements for security staff, the issue of extra manning could be raised by the Union. Should this situation arise the issue can be referred back to the Labour Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th. March 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.