Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91328 Case Number: AD9174 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC91/91.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be implemented without
the Bank creating a precedent.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91328 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7491
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC91/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Bank in
1971. She is presently employed in the grade of senior executive
officer. In 1984, she completed a one year full-time course of
study and obtained an M.B.A. qualification at Cranfield University
in the U.K. She was granted leave of absence for her studies. On
her return she claimed a reimbursement of her expenses but this
was refused by Management. The Union referred the issue, together
with a claim that the worker had been unfairly passed over for
promotion, to a Rights Commissioner for investigation on the 26th
April, 1991. On the 15th May, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued
his recommendation as follows.
"In the light of the above I cannot criticise the Bank's
action in making appointments of a promotional nature. I can
understand the frustration of the worker in being passed over
on a number of occasions but I must confirm that the
Management of the Bank have acted strictly in accordance with
normal practice in the matter.
With regard to the claim by the Trade Union for compensation
for the expenses incurred by the worker in pursuing the
M.B.A. studies at Cranfield College I do feel that some
gesture is warranted here. I therefor recommend that the
Bank should make an ex-gratia payment of £2,000 to the worker
in relation to this matter.
In making this recommendation I in no fashion would wish to
indicate that the Bank have acted other than with fairness up
to now".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 24th June, 1991 the Union appealed the recommendation,
specifically the issue relating to compensation, to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A
Court hearing was held on the 14th August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank has been exceedingly generous to a number of
staff attending similar full-time courses, giving them
between half-pay and full-pay in addition to generous
expenses.
2. The M.B.A. course is approved by the Bank. The
concession of costs for the M.B.A. degree course and other
third level courses is broken down clearly along male/female
lines. (Details supplied to the Court). Although the Bank
actively encourages its staff to achieve third level
qualifications, it has only funded male "high flyers".
A. The total cost of the course was in excess of £25,000
(including fees, expenses, borrowings and salary and pension
rights for one year) for the worker concerned. This is a
massive commitment, representing virtually 200 per cent of
the worker's salary.
B. The ex gratia payment of £2,000 awarded by the Rights
Commissioner represents only 8% of total costs incurred.
3. As the worker concerned successfully achieved her M.B.A.
it is at the Bank's disposal to benefit from it. The fact
that the Bank is prepared to be generous with funding in some
instances shows that it is seen as a worthwhile investment.
4. The main purpose of the worker's ambition to obtain an
M.B.A. was to further her career in the Central Bank. In the
past, the worker has had offers from the private sector, but
choose to continue her career with the Bank.
5. The worker has been considered for a number of internal
promotional positions. She has not been successful to date.
It is now six years since she qualified and she should, like
her male colleagues, be reimbursed for the full costs of
the course.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank has an Academic and Professional Training
Scheme (A.P.T.S.) which provides facilities for staff who
wish to study, outside normal working hours, for University
degrees, professional qualifications, etc. Clerical,
administrative and specialist staff have access to this
scheme, without restriction on numbers and, the scheme
provides for payment of fees and up to four weeks leave each
year. Several members of staff have acquired M.B.A.
qualifications at Dublin universities under this scheme, the
students receive some study and exam leave. The Bank wishes
to retain the egalitarian thrust of this scheme.
2. Applications for full-time leave of absence for study
purposes are considered by the Bank on an exceptional basis,
unrelated to standard A.P.T.S. facilities. There is no
standard package of facilities, but the number of cases in
which financial assistance has been granted has been in the
minority.
3. The few cases where financial assistance was granted
relate to staff whose background in the Bank is as
economists. However, in recent times because of more
stringent economic circumstances there have been two cases
where applications from economists for special leave were
refused and one in which leave without financial assistance
was granted.
4. The Bank does not accept that the worker was
discriminated against in any sense or for any reason. Giving
her special leave was a concession in itself which is not
always granted.
5. Depending on the merits of differing cases, present
policy allows for three decisions - to refuse, to grant leave
only, or to grant leave and financial assistance. If the
middle option were to be compromised - if by granting leave
of absence, the Bank were put under pressure by the outcome
of this case to make substantial payment as well - the
granting of such leave would be unlikely in future. Any such
narrowing of the Bank's discretion could in fact work to the
disadvantage of future applicants.
6. The Rights Commissioner recommended an ex-gratia payment
of £2,000 which would be quite substantial as a "gesture".
The Bank maintains that no award is merited in this case or,
if the Court should decide otherwise, that any award should
be small enough and so worded as not to cause any problem of
precedent for future applications.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be implemented without
the Bank creating a precedent.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd August, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman