Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91247 Case Number: LCR13383 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 350 clerical/administrative and economic staff for a special pay increase.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has given very careful consideration to the
submissions made by the parties. In the light of the arguments
made and the information supplied by both the Union and the Bank,
the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim that a differential
of 15% over the civil service rates for any grade was never agreed
or established. The Court is satisfied that the present rates
accurately reflect the principle enunerated in LCR 10327
particularly in the light of the Bank's undertaking to take into
account and negotiate with the Union on the application of special
pay increases where appropriate. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
On the particular claim made by grades 6 and 7 once again the
Court takes the view that the rates for those grades are not
determined by internal relativities and does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91247 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13383
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 350
clerical/administrative and economic staff for a special pay
increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that the Bank's clerical/administrative pay
scales have fallen out of line with their civil service
equivalents since 1980. The Union claims that not all civil
service increases have carried through to the Bank's grades. The
Union's claim is as follows:
(a) Scale H (SH)
The restoration of its relationship with the Deputy
Manager scale requiring a 3% increase to remove an
anomaly from 1988 and payment of the Gleeson award
retrospective to July, 1990. The Union is also claiming
that the S.H. scale be extended to include the top point
of the Deputy Manager scale (it currently includes all
but the final point of the Deputy Manager scale).
(b) That Principal Officer (P.O.)/Assistant Principal Officer
(A.P.O.) awards should be applied retrospectively to the
Bank's S6 and S7 grades.
(c) That the Higher Executive Officer (H.E.O.)/Executive
Officer (E.O.) awards should be applied to the Bank's
Clerical Officer (C.O.), S.E.O. and S8 grades.
3. The Bank maintains that pay has not fallen out of line and
that the percentage ratio between the Bank's and the civil
service's scales has not changed appreciably since 1980.
Agreement could not be reached locally and on 21st February, 1991,
the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 8th April, 1991, and on 8th May,
1991, the Commission in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 14th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank's S.H. grade was established in 1981, by the
extension of the S5 scale to include all but the final point
of the Deputy Manager scale. The relationship between the
S.H. and Deputy Manager scales remained until 1988, when the
Deputy Managers received a 15% special award, in line with
comparable public service grades, and the S.H. grade was
awarded 12%. More recently the Deputy Managers have been
awarded the Gleeson award. The Bank has rejected the Union's
request to re-establish the original relationship between the
grades. The Union contends that the basis on which the S.H.
grade was established has been undermined. It is anomalous
that two groups within the Bank with overlapping scales should
be treated differently.
2. The Bank's rejection of the Union's claim appears to be
based on a Labour Court Recommendation of 1980, regarding
relativities (L.C.R. 6041 refers). The Union would point out
that this Recommendation could not take into account the S.H.
grade which was not established until 1981.
3. The Union is renewing a request, which was rejected by the
Bank in 1981, that there should be full comparability between
the S.H. and Deputy Manager grades. This is based on the
serious outflow of specialist staff from the Bank in recent
years. The salaries of specialist staff in the Bank vis-a-vis
other public sector bodies have contributed to this outflow.
4. The grades below those to whom the Gleeson award applied,
the P.O. and A.P.O. grades, have recently been awarded 18.5%
and 16% respectively by the Geoghan Arbitration Board. The
two grades below the S.H. grade in the Bank are the S6 and S7
grades. Accordingly, the Union seeks to have the Geoghan
award paid to these grades on the same phasing basis as has
been agreed in the civil service. The Union also seeks a 5%
and 6% increase respectively to compensate for the extent to
which special awards paid to the P.O. and A.P.O. grades in the
civil service during the 1980's differed to those paid to the
S6 and S7 grades (details supplied to the Court).
5. Many of the staff in the S6 and S7 grades are specialist
staff. The Bank has already suffered a substantial outflow of
specialist staff in recent years due to uncompetitive pay
rates. Failure to pay the award will result in an accelerated
outflow of specialists and will leave the S6 and S7 grades
seriously out of line with their comparators in the public
service.
6. The relationship of staff in the C.O., S.E.O. and S8
grades is best served by comparison with the E.O./H.E.O.
structure in the civil service. In the 1980/'88 period this
grouping in the civil service received special awards
amounting to 13%. The corresponding group in the Bank
received only 9% in this period. In addition, the E.O./H.E.O.
group were also awarded a special pay award of 11% in 1989.
Consequently, a retrospective increase of 15%, payable on the
same basis as agreed in the public service, is required to
bring these grades into line with their public service
counterparts.
7. The salary scales of all the grades concerned in this
claim have fallen out of line and this claim represents a
catch-up on special awards already paid in the public sector.
The Bank returns the largest profit from a financial
institution in the state, thus the funding of the claim does
not present any financial difficulty to the Bank. Bank
management have awarded themselves all public sector special
pay increases in line with L.C.R. 6041 but have failed to do
likewise for the staff here concerned.
8. The Bank argued that a 1988 award to staff took account of
prior and impending awards in the public service. This is
rejected by the Union on the grounds that prior special awards
in the public service significantly exceeded the Bank's offer
and the Bank's position with regard to pay is to follow rather
than lead in regard to awards made in the public service.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Bank's right to determine the remuneration, allowances
and terms and conditions of employment of its staff was
established by statute. The Bank has always operated within
the parameters of Government policy. The Bank is a public
sector body and levels of pay in the public sector generally
and the civil service in particular have been followed in
determining pay awards. L.C.R. 6041 found "... that the
clerical and management grades are adjusted by reference to
different grades in the public sector and not to each other."
Internal relativities do not apply. The determinants of the
Bank's pay levels were underlined in L.C.R. 10,327 which
stated "... that the levels of pay and the rate of increase in
pay should be negotiated and agreed on the basis of rates of
pay and increases negotiated, in the public sector generally."
2. The Union's claim that rates of pay have fallen out of
line rests on the issue of special pay increases which have
been applied in both the Bank and the civil service over the
last 10 years. The Union's focus on the special awards shows
significant advantage to the civil service but ignores the
impact of general round increases which were more favourable
to the Bank's staff. In fact, the relative overall positions
of the Bank's grades vis-a-vis the civil service comparators
have remained broadly constant or improved over the last 10
years (details provided to the Court).
3. Taking December, 1988, (which approximates with the date
of the Labour Court hearing from which L.C.R. 10,327 issued)
as the most appropriate base, any changes in the relative
positions of the pay levels of the Bank's staff vis-a-vis
comparable civil service grades have favoured the Bank's
staff. The pay levels of the Bank's C.O., E.O. and S.E.O.
grades compared with a range of public sector organisations do
not show any evidence of distortion in levels of pay among
these grades; rather, the executive grades' pay levels compare
favourably with their public sector peers.
4. The recent Geoghegan awards to P.O. and A.P.O. grades in
the civil service has implications for the Bank's S.H. and S6
grades. The Bank has assured the Union that it would be
prepared to make an appropriate offer to these grades on foot
of the Government's formal acceptance of the P.O./A.P.O.
awards. Senior management grades in the Bank have attracted
special pay awards at or below the 'Gleeson Recommendations.'
They have not received pay awards on a more favourable basis
than the civil service.
5. In 1988, in the context of L.C.R. 10,327, the Bank awarded
a special increase of 9% to its C.O., E.O. and S.E.O. grades
(12.6% at the top point of S.E.O. scale) and 12% to the S6 and
S.H. grades. These awards broadly reflected increases that
had occurred since 1986 or were in prospect in the civil
service. Awards made to the C.O., E.O. and S.E.O. grades have
traditionally reflected awards made to the E.O./H.E.O.
grouping in the civil service. Should any further awards be
made to the E.O./H.E.O. group, the Bank will examine the award
and if appropriate enter negotiations with the Union.
6. The Bank seeks to reward its staff in a reasonable manner
within the parameters of a public sector pay environment. The
last payment under the P.N.R. for the grades here concerned
was made on 1st December, 1990. Accordingly for these staff
the P.N.R. expires on 30th November, 1991, and the P.E.S.P.
will then come into force. The Bank believes that the rates
of pay for the staff concerned compare favourably with
comparable public sector rates and accordingly requests the
Court to reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has given very careful consideration to the
submissions made by the parties. In the light of the arguments
made and the information supplied by both the Union and the Bank,
the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim that a differential
of 15% over the civil service rates for any grade was never agreed
or established. The Court is satisfied that the present rates
accurately reflect the principle enunerated in LCR 10327
particularly in the light of the Bank's undertaking to take into
account and negotiate with the Union on the application of special
pay increases where appropriate. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
On the particular claim made by grades 6 and 7 once again the
Court takes the view that the rates for those grades are not
determined by internal relativities and does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
19th August, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.