Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89865 Case Number: LCR12734 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WOODCHESTER BANK LIMITED - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
Increased working hours.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the long term advantages for the staff concerned
of complete integration with the majority of the staff in the
division, the Court recommends that the terms of the employer's
offer be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89865 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12734
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WOODCHESTER BANK LIMITED
(FORMERLY BOWMAKER BANK LIMITED)
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Increased working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Bank which was formerly Bowmaker Bank was acquired by the
Woodchester Group in April, 1987. At the time of the take-over
the staff of Bowmaker worked a 33 3/4 hour week while staff within
the Woodchester Group worked 36.25 hours. Early in 1988 the Bank
opened new premises in Golden Lane which became its head office,
and advised the Association of its intention to transfer Bowmaker
staff from South Leinster Street to Golden Lane. Following
discussions between the parties and the recommendation of an
independent mediator Bowmaker staff transferred to Golden Lane and
accepted the Bank's proposals for the elimination of tea breaks
and the extension of trading hours in return for luncheon vouchers
and membership of V.H.I. for each worker and family plus a lump
sum payment. The basic working week of Bowmaker staff however
remained at 33 3/4 hours. In June, 1988 the Bank and the
Association negotiated a deal whereby staff in Cork and other
locations in the provinces agreed to changed opening hours and a
36.25 hour working week. In return, staff received a lump sum of
#650 and V.H.I. cover for workers and their families. Dublin
staff were not included in the negotiations. Early in 1989
Woodchester decided to establish a leasing and finance division
consisting of Bowmaker Bank and a number of smaller companies at
Head office in Golden Lane with Bowmaker staff working side by
side with the staff of other Woodchester Group employees and
sharing the same workload. In October, 1989 the Bank wrote to the
Association and intimated that it wished to extend the working day
for Bowmaker staff in Dublin from 33 3/4 to 36.25 hours and offered
a lump sum payment of #650 to each worker (details supplied to the
Court). The Bank claims that the action was necessary as staff of
the various companies were now fully integrated and the working
hours needed to be brought into line with those operated
throughout the rest of the leasing and instalment finance
division. The Association rejected the Bank's decision stating
that Bowmaker staff were given guarantees by Management of the
Woodchester Group that their conditions and hours of work would
not be changed irrespective of what mergers took place. Local
discussions and a conciliation conference held on the 27th
November, 1989 failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 15th January, 1990.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank's attempt to extend the hours of the workers
concerned in line with Woodchester staff is a deliberate
policy to undermine the Association and disadvantage Bowmaker
staff. At all times in negotiations the Bank recognised that
the working hours and flexi-time arrangements should not be
altered. Staff were given, individually and verbally,
commitments by senior management that hours would not be
changed. The Bank's proposal is totally unacceptable to the
Association. Since the take-over uniformity in trading hours
has been achieved by the co-operation of staff and has worked
quite satisfactorily. In Dublin, staff have ensured that all
departments and branches are available and open to the public
who have been given a highly professional service. The Bank's
insistence to change the working week has not been justified
and is purely an ambitious attempt to worsen the hours of the
workers concerned, particularly as it will give no benefit or
advantage to the customer. The Bank's proposed lump sum
payment depicts total contempt for the staff. In the past,
where ongoing benefit has been received, the Bank has accepted
the need for ongoing payment.
2. To use justification for changing the hours on the basis
that the Bowmaker Bank's provincial branches have increased
their working week does not make sense. There has always been
a difference between Dublin and provincial branches. Dublin
staff have had historically flexi-time arrangements since 1980
which could not apply to country branches. Similarly, Dublin
staff worked forty minutes less a week than country staff
because of agreed tea breaks. The agreement in Dublin
amending this practice of tea breaks and the subsequent
extension of the working week in the provincial branches has
retained this relativity and therefore cannot be used as a
basis for comparison whatsoever. If the Bank wants uniformity
in the number of hours worked by all staff at Woodchester
House, it should apply the Bowmaker hours across the board and
not penalise the workers concerned.
3. It is interesting to note that since January, 1990 the
Central Bank has approved the change in name of Bowmaker Bank
to Woodchester Bank. In a circular to staff on the 12th
December, 1989 (details supplied to the Court) the Bank stated
that this change would not effect either terms and conditions
of employment or continuity of service. In this case any
attempt to change the hours of the workers concerned is a
clear breach of this guarantee and commitment.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With the establishment of the leasing and instalment
finance division staff of the various companies including
Bowmaker staff, became fully integrated in an operational
sense and have combined to form specialist teams to carry out
specific functions. Since the acquisition of Bowmaker Bank
terms and conditions of employment have gradually been
stream-lined and this has resulted in a number of positive
benefits to the workers. The one significant difference is
the length of the working week, and the Bank believes that the
Association should accept its proposal to increase the working
week to 36.25 hours. Only 25% of the total workforce of the
leasing and finance division work 33 3/4 hours per week. The
remainder of the staff work 36.25 hours.
2. The integration of operations first occurred in Cork in
1988, where circumstances existed similar to those currently
experienced in Dublin. At that stage the Bank entered into an
agreement with the Association to increase the hours of the
Bank staff in Cork to bring them into line with the working
hours of other staff in that branch. Following that agreement
a further agreement was entered into resulting in an increase
in the working hours in the remainder of the Bank's branches
around the country. The terms of the agreements were
identical in all respects.
3. The offer made by the Bank to compensate the Dublin based
employees for the change of hours is generous. The
inconvenience which will result for staff following the change
in hours will be significantly less than the change agreed to
by the Association in relation to the branch offices. The
requirements of the Bank in relation to changing the working
hours in the branch network were significantly more onerous on
the branch employees than on the Dublin staff. Given the
integration of the operations of the Bank with the other
companies within the leasing and instalment finance division,
uniformity in working conditions is essential to create
harmonious working relations. The Associations' desire to
perpetuate a difference in working conditions can only result
in a divisive working environment. The Bank believes that its
proposal is reasonable and in the best interests of all the
staff within the division.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the long term advantages for the staff concerned
of complete integration with the majority of the staff in the
division, the Court recommends that the terms of the employer's
offer be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
2nd February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.