Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90399 Case Number: LCR13071 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL IRISH INVESTMENT BANK - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Claim by the Union for a 5% salary increase.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking note of the terms of Labour Court Recommendation 12207
which dealt with the issue finds no grounds on which it could
recommend departure from the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Bank's offer of Stage 3 of
the Programme for National Recovery which expires on the 28th
February, 1991 be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90399 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13071
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL IRISH INVESTMENT BANK
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a 5% salary increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. National Irish Investment Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of
National Irish Bank and part of the National Australian Bank
Group. The Bank employs approximately 70 workers and is made up
of the Corporate Finance and Asset Finance Divisions. The workers
concerned are employed mainly in the Asset Finance Division which
deals primarily in the business of leasing contracts. The
Corporate Finance and Asset Finance Divisions were originally two
separate companies (Northern Bank Finance Corporation and Forward
Trust Ireland Limited) and following lengthy negotiations an
integration package was finally agreed with the Association in
1988. The Union claims that the workers concerned (most of whom
were part of Forward Trust Ireland Limited) have fared badly in
relation to salaries compared to other staff in the National Irish
Bank Group. In February, 1990 the Association served a claim for
a 5% increase in salaries for a twelve month period. In response
the Bank offered the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.). The Association rejected this offer. The issue could
not be settled at local level discussions and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 28th June, 1990.
A conciliation conference was held on the 11th July, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 13th July, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the
16th October, 1990.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association was not a party to the P.N.R. and the
workers concerned do not feel in any way obliged to accept its
proposals. The Bank's proposed offer of the terms of the
P.N.R. have been rejected and since there is nothing within
the P.N.R. which precludes employers and unions agreeing on
wage increases in excess of these terms, the Association
believes that the Bank should be forced to improve its offer.
This has happened in some other organisations.
2. Over the past number of years the Bank has become very
much integrated into the overall National Irish Bank Group
which has improved its performance with profitability doubling
in the last couple of years. It is only fair and reasonable
that the workers concerned should benefit from this increased
profitability by virtue of an improved increase in salaries in
excess of the terms of the P.N.R.
3. The Association has been involved in a major change in
National Irish Bank recently which has involved the
introduction of new staff and the provision for severance
payments. It is ironic that staff in the Bank have received
an enhanced lump-sum payment because of their co-operation in
relation to this change, yet the workers concerned, have
received no benefit whatsoever. The Association believes that
in the light of the Employer's concession of a compensatory
payment to other staff within the Group there is a moral and
social obligation on them to improve their offer under
salaries in respect of the workers concerned.
4. The workers concerned are probably the most flexible
workers in the financial services industry. They do not
engage in any form of demarcation and have co-operated fully
with ongoing change over the last number of years. The
present negotiations present Management with an ideal
opportunity to recognise this co-operation and the Association
believes it is not reasonable to expect the workers concerned
to accept purely the terms of the P.N.R.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank in making its pay offer to the Association took
the following factors into account.
(a) the terms of the P.N.R. for the three year period to
end 1990,
(b) the private sector agreement between trade unions
and employers.
The terms of the Bank's offer are fully in accordance with the
current norms and should be accepted by the Association.
2. Under an Integration Agreement in 1988, all staff received
an average increase of 2% in salaries despite the fact that
their jobs have not changed. Staff also received a formalised
incremental structure based on years of service, 5 days
marriage leave, extra holidays, decreased interest rates on
preferential loans, increased payment for Saturday overtime.
A performance related bonus scheme exists and bonuses will be
paid in December. This will cost the Bank #50,000 extra this
year alone. An improved staff loan scheme was also agreed
which will cost the Bank #57,000.
3. The Bank has experienced serious problems in terms of the
profitability of this business. Pay increases in excess of
the P.N.R. cannot be justified. The Bank, notwithstanding its
problems, has offered the P.N.R. terms which is well in line
with the norm in the country. The Bank, through its recently
announced plan is concentrating on securing the jobs of those
currently employed. The Court, in a previous recommendation
(L.C.R. 12207) rejected the Association's claim for a pay
increase in excess of the terms of the P.N.R.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking note of the terms of Labour Court Recommendation 12207
which dealt with the issue finds no grounds on which it could
recommend departure from the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Bank's offer of Stage 3 of
the Programme for National Recovery which expires on the 28th
February, 1991 be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
1st November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.