Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87580 Case Number: LCR11422 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL BANK - and - ITGWU |
Claim under the 26th wage round for pay increase for 48 security guards in the Central Bank.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to previous recommendations on the matter at issue
it is the view of the Court that the approach by the Bank to the
question of ending the existing relativities in this case requires
greater flexibility than is allowed under the terms of the
existing guidelines applicable to the public service. The Court
is further of the opinion that relativity with the Security
Industry J.L.C. is not appropriate in this case. Given that
external relativities with other industrial workers already exist
for a large group of the Bank's employees the Court considers that
there is sufficient scope for the Bank to negotiate terms for the
ending of this groups relativity with the Associated Banks and
establish a mutually agreed criterion for future wage adjustments.
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations on
this basis without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87580 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11422
CC87832 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11422
Parties: CENTRAL BANK
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim under the 26th wage round for pay increase for 48
security guards in the Central Bank.
Background:
2. The 25th wage round expired on the 30th November, 1986. The
Union, on behalf of the workers concerned is claiming the same
wage increase under the 26th round as that granted to security
guards employed in the Associated Banks, #9.50 per week from
December, 1986, with a second phase increase of #2.00 per week,
from 1st April, 1987, the agreement to expire on 29th February,
1988. The Union supported its case by reference to Labour Court
Recommendation 10656, and to recommendations previous to that
namely 5176, and 6906. The management stated that it could not
maintain the parity with an outside party and said that it would
have to conform to government guidelines on pay. A meeting took
place on 15th May, 1987, to discuss ways of breaking the parity
with the security guards in the Associated Banks. No mutually
agreeable arrangement could be reached. On 22nd May, 1987, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 13th July, 1987.
The Bank made an offer of:
a 6 month pay pause from 1st December, 1986, followed
by a 3% increase from 1st June, 1987, the agreement to
last for 12 months.
The offer was unacceptable to the Union. On 23rd July, 1987 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 28th
August, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Before paying the 25th wage round, the Bank sought
substantial increases in flexibility and productivity.
Despite resistance from the security guards, the Bank
has since 1979, implemented a large number of changes
in work practices which are greatly to management's
advantage (details supplied to the Court). The
security guards have given as much flexibility as is
possible. Now that the Bank has achieved this, it is
not prepared to pay the same increase in wages under
the 26th wage round as achieved by the workers'
colleagues in the Associated Banks. This is despite
the fact that there is an established parity between
the two groups, which has been upheld by the Labour
Court. As far as the Union are concerned, the Bank is
refusing to negotiate on terms to end this parity.
(ii) Despite managements insistence that the Bank is part of
the public sector and bound by government guidelines,
it has granted pay increases to the printers which are
higher than those offered to the security guards, under
the government guidelines. The printers enjoy a
relativity with the printing federation, and this
relationship has been honoured in their case.
(iii) In 1979, Labour Court Recommendation No. 5176
recommended parity for the security guards with their
counterparts in the Associated Banks, and since that
date they have been paid the same wage increases and
are on the same wage scale. Even in the 24th Round,
when the clerical workers employed by the Central Bank
were on strike seeking more than the established
government guidelines, the Central Bank payed the
security guards the 10% increase in two phases,
although it was in excess of the then government
guidelines. On that occasion the Bank were honouring
Labour Court Recommendation No. 5176, which established
parity in rates of pay with security guards in the
Associated Banks. The Union are not aware that since
that date the government has stated that security
guards are not to be paid the same rates as the
security guards in the Associated Banks.
Bank's arguments:
4. (a) The Bank is part of the public sector and accordingly,
it must take account of government guidelines on pay
policy in its negotiations on pay rounds with its
staff. As a commentator on fiscal policy and advisor
on monetary policy in which it advocates public
expenditure cuts and pay restraint, the Bank agreed
with the government guidelines on pay in the present
economic circumstances.
(b) The Labour Court has accepted in the past that the
General Bank is part of the public sector and in Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10327 of March, 1986 in
relation to clerical and administrative staff it found
that:
"---- The Bank is not in competition with the
private "financial" sector in the provision of
services and the "profit" of the Bank cannot be a
determining factor in the pay of its employees.
The Bank is in the public sector and its employees
have the conditions of employment normally
associated with public sector employment.
The Court having regard to the method of
determining pay in the public sector and to the
fact that the Bank is a public sector employer and
also to the fact that the parties themselves have
been unable to agree any alternative, does not
consider that adherence to the levels of pay or the
increases negotiated from time to time in the
public sector generally would be unfair to the
staff of the Bank.
The Court therefore, recommends that for the future
the Association (ASTMS) and the Bank should agree
that the levels of pay and the rate of increase in
pay should be negotiated and agreed on the basis of
rates of pay and increases negotiated in the public
sector generally".
The Bank submits that the same logic should apply to
its security staff.
(c) The security guards in the Bank have received pay
increases over the last ten years which are in a range
of 45 - 56% greater than those achieved by the clerical
and administrative staff (details supplied to the
Court). It seems anomalous that an ancillary and
relatively small group of staff such as security should
receive increases far in excess of the clerical and
administrative staff which comprise the majority of
Bank staff.
(d) The granting of the increase sought by the Union under
the 26th pay round would add considerably to the costs
of securing the Bank's premises at a time when the
emphasis is on restricting costs in the public sector.
(e) In addition to basic earnings the workers are in
receipt of payments for meals for most shifts, bank
holiday payments, holiday and overtime payments
(details of average earnings supplied to the Court).
(f) It should be noted that a shift premium of 33 1/3% is
payable for shift duties. The rosters for each
premises incorporate a substantial amount of day time
duties. The shift premium of 1/3 is payable although
the service provided in one location is 4 weeks shift
plus 2 weeks day duties, while in the other it is 4
weeks shift plus 1 weeks day duties. It should be
noted that overtime payments in respect of day time
overtime attract a shift premium of 1/3 in addition to
an overtime rate of time plus one half, double or
treble time.
(g) The rate of pay and conditions of employment enjoyed by
the Bank's security staff are better than these
pertaining in the security industry generally (details
supplied to the Court).
(h) The Bank has sought to implement the Court's most
recent recommendation (No. 10656) in the context of the
specific constraints applicable to the public sector.
It could not consider the granting of a round increase
far in excess of the annual rate of inflation, such as
that given in the Associated Banks. On an ongoing
basis, the Bank would hold that parity of pay,
conditions etc. between its security staff and a
private sector employer is neither appropriate nor
sustainable. We would therefore ask the Court to rule
that negotiations with this group of staff should be
firmly based in a public sector context.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to previous recommendations on the matter at issue
it is the view of the Court that the approach by the Bank to the
question of ending the existing relativities in this case requires
greater flexibility than is allowed under the terms of the
existing guidelines applicable to the public service. The Court
is further of the opinion that relativity with the Security
Industry J.L.C. is not appropriate in this case. Given that
external relativities with other industrial workers already exist
for a large group of the Bank's employees the Court considers that
there is sufficient scope for the Bank to negotiate terms for the
ending of this groups relativity with the Associated Banks and
establish a mutually agreed criterion for future wage adjustments.
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations on
this basis without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
24th September, 1987.
P.F./J.C.