Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87113 Case Number: LCR11114 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - ITGWU |
Changes in conditions for a worker.
Recommendation:
6. It is clear that the reduction in the evening overtime was
brought about as a result of Management becoming aware of a change
in the local Post Office arrangements for accepting franked mail.
The Management's proposal to alter the starting time in the
morning also impacts on the evening overtime.
The Court, is satisfied that the Management's proposal to alter
starting time from 8 to 8.30 a.m. can only be implemented by
agreement of the existing staff, (in this case the porter) under
the terms of the 1978 agreement.
The Court notes that Management are prepared to negotiate payment
of compensation in respect of loss of overtime arising from both
proposed alterations. The Court also notes the high degree of
flexibility and co-operation which has traditionally operated in
the Banking industry and which the 1978 agreement is designed to
continue and extend.
The Court, considers that within the general spirit of the 1978
agreement, neither party should unreasonably withhold agreement to
changed starting time and accordingly, recommends that both
parties should now enter into negotiations with a view to agreeing
the amount of compensation to be paid in relation to both proposed
changes in the claimants working conditions.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87113 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11114
CC8732 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11114
Parties: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Changes in conditions for a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute is a porter at the Bank's
Smithfield branch. He works a forty hour week, with the daily
hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He normally locks up the bank at 5.45
p.m. (on overtime). He would then bring the post to the G.P.O.
also on overtime. In all, he worked 8 hours regular overtime each
week. In November, 1986, the worker was on official strike for
two weeks. The strike was resolved following a conciliation
conference. On his return to work, the worker was informed by
management that it was proposed to reduce his overtime from 8
hours to 1 hour per week, and to change his starting time from 8
to 8.30. The changes were being made because during the strike it
was discovered that the local post office would accept mail up to
4.30 p.m. each day, and thus it was no longer necessary to deliver
the mail to the G.P.O. The Bank stated that the starting time of
8.00 was associated with duties which were no longer appropriate,
as staff do not now begin to enter the building until
approximately 8.50 a.m. unlike the situation in the past. The
Union, on behalf of the worker stated its belief that the Bank was
acting in a vindictive manner in the aftermath of the strike.
3. While the Union was prepared to discuss compensation in
relation to the reduction in overtime arising from the changes in
arrangements for the delivery of the post, it was not prepared to
agree to any change in the worker's starting time. The Bank
responded that if the Union was not prepared to agree to an
alteration in the start time to 8.30 a.m. each morning then it
would not require the worker to work after 5.00 p.m. on any
evening thereby eliminating unnecessary overtime. The Union would
not agree to this, stating that it was part of the worker'sjob to
lock-up the bank. Agreement could not be reached at local level,
and on 6th January, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 6th February, 1987. Agreement could not
be reached at this conference and on 16th February, 1987, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on March 20,
1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) During the conciliation conference which led to
settlement of the original dispute no mention was made
by management of the changes which they subsequently
proposed on the worker's resumption of work. The Bank
are using a clause in the Union/Bank agreement which it
maintains gives the Bank the right to determine the
starting time of a Bank porter (details supplied to
Court). This clause in the agreement is intended for
those occasions when a new porter is being employed in
the Bank. In this event, the hours of the new porter
may be changed from those of his/her predecessor. It
was never intended to cover changes of the kind now
proposed by the Bank.
(ii) The worker involved in this case was instructed by the
manager of the Bank some years ago to go to the G.P.O.
each evening with the post. Any suggestion that he
"manufactured" overtime is without foundation, and
indeed this allegation was withdrawn once the facts
were ascertained.
(iii) The worker has been employed in the Bank for the past
twenty two years. He has got used to a starting time
of 8.00 a.m. each day and should not be forced to
accept the unilateral imposition of an 8.30 a.m. start.
The Union request the Court not to agree to a worsening
of the worker's working conditions.
Bank's arguments:
5. (a) In 1978 the Union and the Bank Staff Relations
Committee (representing the Associated Banks) concluded
a comprehensive agreement, on the terms and conditions
of employment for porters, etc.
Paragraph 1 of the agreement is as follows:
"STARTING TIMES
At the present time Porters in some instances start
work at an unnecessarily early hour. These early
starting times were associated with particular duties,
e.g. lighting furnaces, setting fires, etc. which no
longer exist. It is agreed that in future starting
times should be flexible and should be determined by
the Manager in charge.
The starting times which are at present in operation
for existing staff will not be altered except by
agreement with the staff member concerned."
(b) The Bank is satisfied that there is no necessity for
the worker to continue to commence work at 8.00 a.m.
each day and initiated discussions with a view to
agreeing the change. Management must be in a position
to determine the times at which work will
commence/finish.
(c) Recognising that the change in starting time would
effect overtime earnings, the Bank was prepared to
offer compensation in respect of the reduction in the
overtime earnings.
(d) The Bank cannot accept that the Union would seek to
dictate the finishing time for any employee, as they
attempted to do in response to the Bank's proposal that
if the worker wished to continue, for personal reasons,
to commence work at 8.00 a.m. he would be required to
finish work at 5.00 p.m. The Union rejected this
proposal and insisted that the worker continue to
commence work at 8.00 a.m. and finish work when the
staff were leaving the office, usually between 5.15
p.m. and 5.30 p.m. The Bank believes that its right to
alter the starting time is established in the 1978
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. It is clear that the reduction in the evening overtime was
brought about as a result of Management becoming aware of a change
in the local Post Office arrangements for accepting franked mail.
The Management's proposal to alter the starting time in the
morning also impacts on the evening overtime.
The Court, is satisfied that the Management's proposal to alter
starting time from 8 to 8.30 a.m. can only be implemented by
agreement of the existing staff, (in this case the porter) under
the terms of the 1978 agreement.
The Court notes that Management are prepared to negotiate payment
of compensation in respect of loss of overtime arising from both
proposed alterations. The Court also notes the high degree of
flexibility and co-operation which has traditionally operated in
the Banking industry and which the 1978 agreement is designed to
continue and extend.
The Court, considers that within the general spirit of the 1978
agreement, neither party should unreasonably withhold agreement to
changed starting time and accordingly, recommends that both
parties should now enter into negotiations with a view to agreeing
the amount of compensation to be paid in relation to both proposed
changes in the claimants working conditions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th April, 1987
P.F./J.C.