ATM dispute - Real fears driving strike action

FEAR for their lives is the stark reason why SIPTU workers have rejected a formula aimed at ending a dispute which has left large numbers of ATM machines on the east coast without cash.

What began as an industrial relations row has now become a question of law and order with the safety of workers the central issue.

Inevitably, the two-to-one vote in a ballot on settlement proposals means thousands of people will continue to be denied access to the ATM service. In all, about 70 machines owned by AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank in non-branch locations on the east coast have been left without money because of the strike.

It would be tempting, but over-simplistic, to lambaste the workers. Only when a shotgun is pointed at one’s head, as Kevin McMahon of SIPTU’s Security Services Branch put it, can the fear factor really be grasped.

If anything, the fears of workers are understandable in a scenario where armed raids on ATM dispensers and cash transit vans are taking place with increasing regularity.

In the past year alone, according to the latest garda crime statistics, there has been a 15% rise in armed attacks at ATM machines and on security vans.

The extremes to which criminals go to get their hands on cash is graphically illustrated by today’s news picture of the aftermath of an ATM robbery at Borris in Co Carlow. It shows how a JCB digger was literally used to tear down the wall of a bank.

Apart from giving the “hole in the wall” an entirely new meaning, this graphic depiction of the second JCB robbery in as many nights also reflects the fact that ruthless criminals feel they can flout the law in towns up and down the country.

There is no gainsaying the hazards inherent in this Wild West scenario. The workers concerned have been at the sharp end of armed attacks. Some had shotguns pointed at their heads. Others were pistol-whipped and shots were actually fired during hold-ups.

Central to the current dispute was an attempt by the company to introduce new security procedures that employees claim would leave them more vulnerable to attack.

Arguably, the situation was compounded by the firm’s instruction to drivers of newly introduced Dutch security vans to abandon fellow crew members at the scene of a raid. Effectively, they would be left stranded on the pavement with dangerous criminals.

Arguably, in view of the sensitivity of this situation, Brinks should have consulted the union fully before implementing changes.

This issue was apparently resolved despite yesterday’s rejection of the settlement formula hammered out by the Labour Relations Commission.

A difficult situation is now unfolding for the company according to SIPTU, which had recommended acceptance of the deal. The union claims Brinks could go out of business and that a similar threat is hanging over every security firm in the country due to the high losses suffered in a string of armed robberies.

If their jobs are to survive, the security men must immediately return to the talks table and resume work. However, the genuine safety concerns at the centre of this dispute must be adequately addressed and fully resolved.

With lives clearly at risk, there is a heavy onus on the gardaí to step up protection measures for cash transit operations. But they must also crack down relentlessly on the criminal gangs behind the current spate of armed attacks.