Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89327 Case Number: AD8945 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 394/88.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation decides as follows:-
- The Bank's offer of grading at the maximum of the
Vault Officer scale from July, 1988 be accepted.
- That pension entitlement be calculated in the usual
averaged manner.
- That in addition to pension entitlements the Bank
pay to the appellant an ex-gratia payment of #5,000.
This sum to be paid immediately.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89327 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 394/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1963 the worker was appointed to the Library and in 1971
was appointed Librarian and placed on the Special Executive Post
grade (SEP), this grade was assimilated onto the S7 grade (Senior
Executive Officer (SEO) scale) in 1976. Between 1976 and 1982 the
worker made several representations to the various departmental
managers and to the personnel department concerning the up-grading
of the Library section and her post of Librarian to S6 grade
(Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) scale). In 1982 and later
she was informed that there was no justification based on internal
or external comparisons for such an upgrading. In 1982, the
worker applied for a transfer to get wider experience in order to
get the opportunity of promotion through the SEO grade to the SAO
scale. No such transfer took place. The worker considers that
she was unfairly treated as the Bank did not inform her until 1982
that the Library and her post would not be upgraded. In addition,
if the worker had been transferred in 1982 she would have had the
opportunity of promotion to SAO, and could have reached the
maximum of the SAO scale by 1986/87 and therefore would have
qualified for a retirement pension based on the maximum point of
the SAO scale.
3. At a meeting held in July, 1988 the Bank offered to place the
worker on the maximum point of the Vault Officer scale (which is
higher than the maximum point of the SEO scale) on a personal
basis in order to give her an improvement in her pension. This
was rejected by the worker who is claiming that she should receive
a pension based entirely on the maximum point of the SAO scale.
This would give her an increase in pension of approximately #2,150
compared to a pension based on the maximum point of the SEO scale.
The worker subsequently referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 24th January, 1989 and
made the following recommendation-
"...I recommend that the Bank offer and the worker
accepts a pension on retirement based on the maximum
point of the Vault Officer scale (without averaging)
purely on a personal basis".
(The worker was referred to by name in the Recommendation).
4. On 27th April, 1989, the worker appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 31st May, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In February, 1976 the worker received a letter from
personnel informing her that the SEP grade was being
assimilated into the S7 grade (SEO scale). The letter also
stated that the worker would require experience in other posts
on the SEO grade before she could be considered for SAO
vacancies in the future and that an application for a transfer
at any future time would be given every consideration (details
supplied to the Court). From 1976 on the worker made several
applications through various managers to have her position and
the Library upgraded. It was not until six years later in
1982 that she was informed that she would not be promoted in
her position as Librarian.
2. In 1982 the worker applied for a transfer to another
department in order to get the opportunity of promotion to SAO
and therefore of being eligible for retirement at the maximum
point of the SAO scale (details supplied to the Court).
However, in 1988 the worker was informed that there was no
record of her application for a transfer and that due to the
degree of specialisation that she had acquired it was not
possible to arrange a transfer. Although the worker disagrees
with the Bank's decision not to upgrade the Library and the
Librarian's position, she appreciates that the Bank has the
prerogative to make such decisions. However, the worker was
unfairly treated by not being informed of the Bank's decision
at a much earlier stage, so that she could have applied for a
transfer earlier in order to gain wider experience in the
Bank. In addition, as the worker's application for a transfer
in 1982 was not dealt with she was deprived of the opportunity
of promotion to the SAO grade. In all the circumstances, the
worker should be entitled to a pension based entirely on the
maximum point of the SAO scale.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In 1987 the Bank carried out a survey of library resources
in other public sector organisations. Out of eight such
organisations only three (with larger libraries and staff)
paid their Librarians salaries higher than that of the worker
concerned. It was clear from this that there was no
justification for the worker to be upgraded on the basis of
external comparisons in relation to size, staff levels, terms
and conditions of employment and technology utilised. On the
basis of internal comparisons and given the Librarian's range
of responsibilities it would be unprecedented within the
Bank's structure to upgrade the position of Librarian to the
S.A.O. grade. When comparing her position to other SEO posts
and to the degree of responsibility of SAO posts (details
supplied to the Court) it is clear that the post of Librarian
with the Bank is properly graded. If the worker had been
transferred to another job she would not have been assured of
promotion.
2. The Bank would be legally debarred from implementing the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation because of the provisions
of the Bank's superannuation scheme. Under the provisions of
this a staff member's gain on achieving a higher grade must be
averaged where it occurs within three years of the staff
member's retirement date. However, in July, 1988 the Bank
offered to place the worker on the maximum of the Vault
Officer scale (pension based on averaging). This is the only
avenue available to satisfy the worker's aspirations for
higher pension entitlements upon retirement.
DECISION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation decides as follows:-
- The Bank's offer of grading at the maximum of the
Vault Officer scale from July, 1988 be accepted.
- That pension entitlement be calculated in the usual
averaged manner.
- That in addition to pension entitlements the Bank
pay to the appellant an ex-gratia payment of #5,000.
This sum to be paid immediately.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___12th___June,___1989. __________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman