FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Buyout Of Pre 2004 Contracts, (2) Reduction In Pay - Annualised Hours Contracts, (3) Introduction Of One-Man Crew, (4) Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and Union concerning cash-in-transit employees. The issues in dispute between the parties include the buy-out of pre-2004 contracts, pay cuts, redundancies and the introduction of one man vehicles. In April, 2009 the Company informed the Union that cost saving measures were necessary to sustain its business in Ireland. The Company made proposals regarding the aforementioned issues in dispute as part of a restructuring programme. The Union contend that it is unacceptable that the Company tries to resolve its financial problems at the expense of its members pay and conditions exclusively.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commision. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th August, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The consequences of changing to annualised hours for pre-2004 workers would be a very significant reduction in pay, loss of lunch money and working 5/7 rather than a 5/5 week.
2 Given the Company's financial circumstances, the Union are prepared to concede to a reduction in pay. However, it should be noted that competitors have paid the 3.5% increase provided under Towards 2016 and in making this concession on pay it would be the Union's intention to pursue the recovery of any pay reduction when the Company returns to profitability.
3 The Union is seeking redundancy compensatory terms based on 5 weeks pay plus statutory in the event that the Company pursues redundancies as part of its cost reduction programme.
4 The Union are prepared to support a proposal for the introduction of a one man crew operation on a voluntary basis, subject to compliance with the PSA regulations for the operation of one man vehicles and the appropriate health and safety measures being complied with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company offered 1.5 times loss of earnings for the changes which it is asking staff to make. It is the Company's belief that in the current economic climate to be able to receive such a lump sum plus continue to receive a fair rate of pay is not unreasonable.
2 The Company is seeking a 5% pay reduction for staff.
3The Company has negotiated with the Union a redundancy formula on previous occasions that being statutory plus 1.5 weeks per year of service. The Company believes that this redundancy package was fair and reasonable at the time and it is still fair and reasonable.
4 The Company is willing to give a commitment that the usage of one man crews would be in line with industry standards which it believes safe guards everybody.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s restructuring proposals required to meet the competitive demands necessary for its survival. The issues concern the Company’s cash-in-transit operations and cash-in-transit employees. Having carefully considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court makes the following recommendations on the four outstanding issues following Company/ Trade Union negotiations: -
Buy-Out of Pre-2004 Contracts
The Court notes the arrangement made to red-circle certain employees when an Annualised Hours system of working was introduced in 2004. The Court recommends that those employees on pre-2004 contracts should be offered a buy-out of twice their annual loss in return for acceptance of Annualised Hours working on a voluntary basis.
Redundancy terms
For those employees who do not wish to volunteer for the new proposed Annualised Hours working arrangement, the Court recommends that the established redundancy package of 1 ½ week’s pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy payments should be offered by the Company.
Pay Reduction
The Company sought a 5% reduction in pay. The Union, in recognition of the severe circumstances facing the Company, has accepted that Towards 2016 increases will not be paid and accepts that there is a necessity to reduce pay, therefore, it indicated that it was willing to accept a pay reduction of 3%. The Court is of the view that in the circumstances the Union’s position is reasonable and accordingly recommends that pay rates should be reduced by 3% for all the cash-in-transit employees.
Introduction of One Man Crew
The Court is of the view that having regard to meeting the necessary safety concerns, the Company’s proposals to introduce one-man-crewing operation is necessary in line with industry norms and accordingly recommends that it should be phased in over a period of 12 months.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th October, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.