Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89247 Case Number: LCR12422 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL BANK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claims on behalf of currency assistants arising from the mechanisation of the note processing area.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that having established a public service
relativity and in particular having regard to the terms of Clause
1(G) and Clause 7 of the Productivity Agreement of 1981, no
reasonable basis exists for an increase in basic pay on the
grounds put forward to the Court.
However, in acknowledgement of the impact of the proposed
technological change on the jobs of the group, the Court
recommends that the Bank's offer be amended to provide for a lump
sum of #1000 to each of the workers concerned and that the offer
so amended be accepted and that full co-operation with the
required changes commence without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89247 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12422
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of currency assistants arising from the
mechanisation of the note processing area.
BACKGROUND:
2. The currency assistants work in the Bank's currency centre in
Sandyford. They work in the Currency Distribution area and are
mainly involved in the physical movement of notes and coin on the
premises, from vehicles to vaults, between vaults, from vaults to
counting rooms, etc. They are involved in the feeding and
operating of the incinerators which have traditionally destroyed
soiled notes removed from circulation. The assistants' work also
includes certain other general services around the offices and
premises. The Bank has decided to mechanise the processing of
soiled and reissuable banknotes. Traditionally, these notes have
been processed by hand by another group of staff, the currency
checkers. The change will enable the Bank to fully sort all
receipts and to count higher volumes, with a view to an
improvement in the quality of banknotes in circulation. The
involvement of currency checkers in the new system was the subject
of prolonged negotiations which were resolved by Labour Court
Recommendation No. 12302, accepted by both parties. In November,
1988 the Bank informed the Union that it would be taking delivery
of one machine at the end of that month, that it would require two
less currency assistants and that the shredding facility would
greatly reduce the need for incinerations. It offered a 2.50%
increase in the overtime rate and a formal recognition of the 39
hour week. The Bank's position was rejected by the Union which
opposed the introduction of mechanisation without agreement and
sought a monetary offer to the assistants to facilitate
mechanisation. The matter was the subject of Labour Court
conciliation conferences on 5th January and 17th January, 1989.
The Bank offered to establish a relativity for special pay
increases with an appropriate public sector group. The dispute
between the Bank and the currency checkers then took place and
this was resolved in early March. On 6th March the Bank suspended
the currency assistants for refusing to carry out work in response
to the turning on of the installed machine. On 7th March a
dispute commenced and a Labour Court conciliation conference took
place that evening. Work resumed on 8th March, pending the
outcome of negotiations. On 10th March the Bank offered a lump
sum of #250 for mechanisation and an allowance for operating the
new compactor machine to be paid to one designated person. The
matter was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 14th March,
1989 and on 16th March, the Court issued Recommendation No. 12320
which stated:
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the
parties. It has noted in particular the request by the
Union that it recommend further negotiations for a
specified period and further notes the request that no
machine be turned on for the period in question.
Having ascertained during the course of the hearing
that, apart from the effects of shredding, the element
of work of the currency assistants which would be
directly affected by the start up of the machines would
at most amount to two man hours per day when training
of the checkers is complete, the Court does not
consider the request for further delay in the
installation and start up of the machines to be
reasonable. Indeed until the machines are fully
operational suggestions that their operation will have
an indirect impact on the work of the assistants must
remain entirely speculative.
The Court for this reason recommends that the machines
be installed and that training of the currency checkers
begin without further delay.
The Court further recommends that further negotiations
take place as requested by the Union and that if no
agreement is arrived at between the parties on or
before Friday 31st March the issues then outstanding
will be referred back to the Court for specific
recommendation. The Court further recommends that no
shredding takes place during this period".
This recommendation was accepted by both parties. Further
meetings and a conciliation conference failed to produce
agreement.
The Bank's final offer was:-
(1) 2.50% increase on overtime rates.
(2) A lump sum of #250 to each worker for co-operation with
mechanisation
(3) 4.8% differential (the same as a fork-lift allowance)
for the worker who will operate the new compactor
machine.
(4) 2.4% differential for relief worker for (3) above.
This was rejected by the Union. The matter was the subject of a
further Labour Court hearing on 20th April, 1989. The Court
visited the Sandyford premises on 16th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The currency assistant's duties and responsibilities
will be radically altered by mechanisation. The volume of
bank notes processed will increase twenty fold thus increasing
the level of responsibility of the currency assistants. These
staff play a very important part in the note processing area
and will contribute greatly to the increased efficiency under
mechanisation. Management has stated that the currency
assistants play a "vital role". Management is now seeking
total flexibility from the currency assistants and should be
prepared to pay compensation for this. The Union rejects
Management's contention that the 1981 Productivity Agreement
precludes such a payment.
2. The Bank is proposing to allocate some of the
assistants' work to the checkers, specifically note
distruction, distribution and cleaning of machines. The Union
opposes this proposal and seeks to have these duties retained
by the assistants. If it is decided that note destruction is
to be carried out by the checkers on the new machines then the
assistants should be paid appropriate compensation.
3. The offer made to the currency checkers was:-
(a) #1000 lump sum
(b) 12% increase in two phases
(c) internal promotion to supervisor if any supervisors
go on early retirement
(d) a new promotion grade of senior currency checker.
This offer was improved upon by 2% in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 12302. The Bank is seeking more from the
currency assistants arising from mechanisation than from the
checkers and yet is offering them less. In addition to new
duties, flexibility, increased responsibility, reduction in
numbers and loss of overtime, all of which affect the checkers
as well as the assistants, the assistants will experience a
transfer of duties and an increase in working hours.
4. The Bank is introducing a new machine known as a "compactor"
which will be operated by the currency assistants. This
machine will press the note shreddings into "bales" ready for
dumping. The compactor will be in constant use and will
require monitoring and operation. Management has stated that
this is a very responsible job since the machine is both
expensive and sensitive. The Bank's proposal to train only
two currency assistants on the operation of the compactor with
the payment of a 4.8% allowance to the operator and 2.8% to
the relief operator is rejected by the Union. The Union
contends that all currency assistants should be trained in the
operation of the machine and a 6% allowance paid to all.
5. The Bank is seeking to increase the working hours of currency
assistants. The increase could be as much as 40 minutes per
day. The Union is seeking an 8% increase in pay to compensate
for this increase in hours.
6. The currency assistants will suffer a loss of overtime as a
result of the introduction of mechanisation.
7. The agreement reached on relativity does not preclude a
payment for the introduction of mechanisation.
8. Given all the issues involved, the Union, on behalf of the
currency assistants, is seeking a 20% increase in salary for
the introduction of note processing machinery.
9. The Union disputes the Banks breakdown of time spend by the
currency assistants on various duties.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The overall level of the currency assistants work will
fall as a result of mechanisation. This will lead to a small
reduction in staffing requirements. The Bank has offered the
terms of the Public Service Early Retirement Scheme, and has
offered the services of a firm of Consultants to advise staff
on changing jobs. It has also been indicated that
redeployment may be an option.
2. A general pay increase to currency assistants arising
from the mechanisation of the note processing area is not
warranted. The currency assistants, unlike the checkers, have
no direct involvement with the mechanisation. A reduction in
duties is not a valid basis for their claim. The Bank
contends that the 1981 Productivity Agreement requires the
currency assistants to co-operate fully with the new system
(details supplied).
4. 3. The currency assistants are seeking an involvement in
the machine-processing area, specifically in bank note
destruction, distribution and the cleaning of machines. The
shredding of banknotes is part of a single automated run and
cannot be isolated as a single function. The movement of
small cash tanks from preparation to the machines, under the
new system, in no way corresponds to the movement of notes in
large bogies under the old system. The cleaning of machines
is a very minor duty and is an integral part of the operator's
responsibility (i.e. a currency checker).
4. The Bank has recently reached agreement with the
currency checkers on relativity for special pay increases with
the Civil Service messenger group. The Bank is not prepared
to concede increases arising from both relativity and
mechanisation.
5. The Bank considers its offer relating to the compactor
machine to be more than adequate. The two workers concerned
are unlikely to be required to do a full day's work related to
the compactor machine. There is no justification for
extending this payment to all currency assistants.
6. The currency assistants terms and conditions of
employment specify a 40 hour week. In practice they have not
been required to work these hours fully. To assist the
effective running of the machines by other staff it will now
be required that several assistants should remain each day for
approximately 10 - 15 minutes later than their usual departure
time. In return for this flexibility, the Bank has offered to
reduce their formal working requirement to 39 hours, resulting
in an increase of 2.5% in overtime rate. The requirement to
work for 10 - 15 minutes would not in itself involve overtime
payment.
7. Without prejudice to its overall stance on the Union's
pay claim, the Bank has offered a lump sum payment of #250 to
each currency assistant. This offer is in the interest of
industrial relations harmony and is conditional on the
assistants accepting their obligation to co-operate fully with
the implications of the new mechanised system
8. The Bank provided the Court with a breakdown of the time
spent by the currency assistants on their various duties. The
figures were disputed by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that having established a public service
relativity and in particular having regard to the terms of Clause
1(G) and Clause 7 of the Productivity Agreement of 1981, no
reasonable basis exists for an increase in basic pay on the
grounds put forward to the Court.
However, in acknowledgement of the impact of the proposed
technological change on the jobs of the group, the Court
recommends that the Bank's offer be amended to provide for a lump
sum of #1000 to each of the workers concerned and that the offer
so amended be accepted and that full co-operation with the
required changes commence without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
------------------
13th June, 1989
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman