FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CIVIL & PUBLIC SERVICES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Amalgamation / Re-location of Call-Centre within the General Post Office (GPO).
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2010 An Post advised the Union that it intended to rearrange Call-Centre operations on foot of the expiry of it's contract with the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA). The Union was advised initially that eight dedicated staff would ensure a single point of contact for all An Post customers.
From the outset the Union identified and indicated to the Company that staffing levels, selection and recognition rights were a major concern to members. Discussions and meetings took place between the parties over the following months in an effort to resolve the issues of concern.
The matters could not be resolved at local level and were the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was not reached on all the issues. Matters concerning staffing levels, burnout, recognition, location and flexitime could not be agreed and these issues were referred to the Labour Court on the 15th June 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th July 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that eight staff is an insufficient allocation to provide cover for annual leave, sick leave and normal rest break requirements.
2. The Union is concerned that staff in the newly established area should be entitled to avail of a rotation system that allows them to return to the Central Operations area to carry out non-Call-Centre duties. This would enable staff to get a break from the pressurised duty in a call centre environment.
3. The Union maintains that the designated Call-Centre should be staffed by CPSU recognised grades as is the case presently and that the Company respect that position.
4. The Union contends that members who agree to work in the proposed Call-Centre should be entitled to the same arrangements as their other CPSU colleagues and be provided with the flexi-time facility currently in place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contends that the proposed staffing levels are based on the current staffing levels. It will keep staffing levels under review and in line with existing agreements revise these levels depending on the volume of work on offer.
2. The Company is confident that the issue of burnout will not arise based on its long experience, but it is willing to fully integrate staff working on NTMA products so that they can rotate with all other areas of customer service.
3. The Company confirmed that the CPSU would have recognition rights for any CPSU members who transferred to the Customer Service Centre.
4. The Company stated that staff transferring to the Customer Service Centre do so on a voluntary basis and that therefore no one would be compelled to give up a post which currently includes flexi-time. A scheme whereby staff can avail of leave in lieu will be extended to include any staff who transfer to the Customer Service Centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s proposal to relocate and integrate the Central Operations Call Centre into the Company’s Customer Service Centre. The Central Operations Call Centre is responsible for managing State Savings Schemes on behalf of the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA).
The Company submitted to the Court that in order to successfully tender for the NTMA contract it needs to improve its service and lower its costs and accordingly sought the required changes. The Company stated that a review of the current Call-Centre had been conducted in the context of the reorganisation and modernisation of Central Operations which includes a move from the current paper- based processing to a new IT Workflow System.
The Union disputed a number of issues surrounding the integration proposals, however, it indicated that it was prepared to discuss and agree changes. The Union’s difficulties with the Company’s proposals were principally surrounding staffing levels, selection procedures, recognition rights, rotation, flexitime arrangements and location.
The Company informed the Court that the first stage of the new IT system dealing with the Repayments Section is due to be completed by September next; the second stage dealing with the Deceased Section is due to be completed by October 2011 and the final stage dealing with Customer Administration is due to completed by January 2012.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court recommends as follows:
- �While the various Sections are in the process of being implemented and tested with the new IT Workflow System, the Court recommends that both the old and the new systems should be run together on a dual operational basis while the old system is being run down and the new system is being implemented. The Court recommends that the initial complement of eight employees as envisaged by the Company should be put in place at the required stages and reviewed in the light of operational business requirements.
�The Court recommends that the dual operations should run in tandem with each of the three stages of the transitional period in order to examine and monitor the feasibility of the staffing levels particularly with regard to the volume levels, cover for leave entitlements, rest breaks and rotational arrangements.
�The Court recommends that the competition for the new posts should be open to both permanent and temporary employees.
�The Company confirmed that CPSU will retain recognition rights for any CPSU members who transfer to the Customer Services Centre with Clause 6 of its 2003 Agreement applying:- “grades which have had separate recognition arrangements are being subsumed into the same level of the new structure, single table bargaining/joint recognition will apply”.
�The Court considers the Company’s offer as reasonable to provide rotation of duties to employees onto other Customer Service Centre duties if so required in order to avoid possible burn-out. The Court recommends that this issue should be reviewed as part of the recommended review outlined below.
�The Court notes that the Company’s proposals are designed to establish a focused well-trained knowledge-based call-centre, to deal with customer queries on NTMA products in a comprehensive dedicated way facilitated by access to the new IT Workflow System. For operational reasons this requires the Company to operate the NTMA call centre within the overall Customer Service Centre located on the ground floor of the GPO. In those circumstances the Court sees no reason why it should be retained in a different location (on the third floor of the GPO) and recommends accordingly.
�Finally, the Court recommends that the Union should co-operate with the implementation of the new call centre, on the basis of this Recommendation and in addition to the monitoring phases due to take place during the three stages of implementation as outlined above, and the Court recommends that a further review should take place six months after the final stage, i.e. the second review should be conducted around the beginning of August 2012. - “grades which have had separate recognition arrangements are being subsumed into the same level of the new structure, single table bargaining/joint recognition will apply”.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th August 2011______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.