Cash-in-transit guards strike over dangerous conditions

Download article in original language : FR0102124NFR.DOC

In January 2001, faced with an increase in attacks against them, French cash-in-transit security guards staged a one-day strike aimed at speeding up the process of implementing measures to boost security at work.

In May 2000, major industrial action by cash-in-transit security guards paralysed cash supplies to banks and automatic teller machines (ATM s) in France (FR0006169N). As a result of the death of a security guard attacked on 3 January 2001 while he was stocking an ATM in an unprotected public area, the Ministry of Transport convened an emergency round-table meeting to encourage security companies and their clients (banks and large-scale retailers) to expedite the implementation of measures to guarantee security guards greater safety in their job. These measure were decided in May 2001, but their implementation has been slow. Indeed, a government decree of 18 December 2000 gives clients of cash-in-transit companies two years to make alterations to dangerous sites.

Whereas trade unions mainly targeted their strike action in May 2000 at employers and focused on demands for better security and wages, they are now taking their employers' clients to task. They are criticising them for being slow to implement the required measures, such as random stocking times or shorter security guard exposure to unprotected or public places. It should be noted that even though the sector is a duopoly, with the two largest companies - Brinks and Ardial- holding 80% of the market, their clients seek to ensure competition between the firms. Against the backdrop of this competition, the safety of security guards is arguably seen first and foremost as merely a cost.

Some retail companies pledged their goodwill at the meeting, which led to the convening of meetings of département-level safety committees (commissions départementales de sécurité) - made up of security companies, their clients, workers' representatives and departmental prefects - to consider local conditions. However, the unions were agreed that this was insufficient and all rallied to a strike initially called by CGT-FO on the day of the security guard's funeral in January. They called on security guards to boycott unsafe areas under their statutory "right to walk out", whereby workers may legally walk off the job if they believe their health or personal safety are in jeopardy. In a new twist, Brinks, one of the two major security firms and the employer of the dead security guard, approved this move.

In so doing, Brinks confirmed its existing strategy of immediately complying with the new standards for armoured vehicles provided for in the recent government decree. This demonstrates that Brinks is committed to positive action, which is not, according to the unions, the approach adopted by the company's customers or its major competitor. While the trade unions have shown great unity in their demands and types of action, the two large cash-in-transit companies have adopted widely differing strategies. In dismissing an "all-armoured" approach, Ardial is advocating the most cost-effective solutions, in particular unmarked vehicles with an unarmed crew of two instead of the normal three, carrying bundles of notes which automatically become spotted with indelible ink in the event of attack. While Brinks is also testing new technology, such as spotting and tracking chips hidden in bundles of notes, the company has also evaluated the limitations of such systems and has opted for armoured vehicles. The unions have highlighted the risk in terms of staffing levels associated with the Ardial solution.