FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRINKS IRLELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to various issues surrounding the Company's redundancy and restructuring proposals. The dispute relates specifically to the Company's proposed operational changes, redundancy package and changes to the terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the Cash In Transit Division. The Employer has presented a business plan to the Union which incorporates a number of changes required to secure the future viability of the Company. The Union, while acknowledging the difficulties faced by the Company, rejected aspects of the business plan.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 10th August, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th August, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the redundancy package on offer is below industry norms and is lower than packages that have previously been paid within the Company. The Union is therefore seeking an enhanced redundancy package for its members.
2. The Union is agreeable to a pay freeze for 2016 however it will not agree to a pay reduction as sought by the Company.
3. The Union is willing to co-operate with operational changes proposed by the Company provided its concerns regarding safety, health and security of the staff are adequately addressed before they are introduced. Finally the Union is seeking to retain the Christmas Bonus currently paid to all staff.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer states that it has increased its offer on redundancy several times in response to the Union's claims. When these were rejected by the Union it withdrew its offer and reinstated the standard offer of two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements. It is not in a position to improve that offer at this time.
2. The Employer is seeking a 3% reduction in current pay levels and in addition a pay freeze until 1 January 2017.
3. The Employer contends that it requires the standardisation of terms and conditions of employment generally and in addition removal of the Christmas Bonus in order to bring its costs and expenditures into balance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows: -
Operational Changes
The Court notes the Union’s willingness to agree to the operational changes proposed by the Company subject to its concerns regarding the safety, health and security of the staff being adequately addressed. In that context the Court recommends that the Company set out in writing a formal risk assessment in respect of each of the proposed changes to work practices. That the Union, within 14 days of the receipt of the formal risk assessment, will submit a formal written detailed response to the Company’s risk assessment setting out any or all issues that may arise together with proposals to resolve any or all of those issues identified. That the parties within 7 days thereafter reconcile the respective assessments and thereafter implement the proposed changes if and as amended.
Redundancy Package:-
The Court recommends that the Company reinstate its last offer, which was withdrawn on 7 July 2015, in full and final settlement of this matter.
Christmas Bonus:-
The Court notes the Company’s willingness to remove this matter from its proposals at this time and recommends accordingly.
Standardisation of Terms and Conditions of Employment
The Court, noting that the Company, in the course of the hearing, increased its offer to buy out the non-standard terms and conditions of employment involved from 1.5 times to 2 times the annual loss incurred by each person affected, recommends that the Union accept the revised offer.
Pay:-
The Court recommends that the parties, in full and final settlement of this matter, agree to defer the pay increase due in January 2016 for a period of 12 months and to review the position at that time in the context of the circumstances then prevailing.
The Court so recommends in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th September 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.