Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90646 Case Number: AD9128 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND FINANCE - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Association against Rights Commissioner's recommendation CW197/90 concerning the grievances of a worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Bank offers and the worker accepts the
following:
(a) The Manager and the worker meet to clarify the exact
role and responsibilities involved in the position of
Manager - Premises Administration (in effect a detailed
job description)
(b) The Bank re-offers to the worker entry to the E.R.S. and
that he accepts this without condition and within a 1
month period of completion of (a) above,
(c) And in addition, following completion of (a) above the
Bank reviews the working conditions and environment of
Mr Molloy
(d) The Bank determines areas of Training opportunity which
might be appropriate to the career development of the
worker.
Both the Manager and the worker were named in the Rights
Commissioner' recommendation.
The Association rejected the recommendation and by letter
dated 1st November, 1990, appealed it to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing was held on 26 February, 1991.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association believes quite firmly that there is an
immediate requirement on the Bank to upgrade the worker's job
in line with other jobs within the organisation and to apply
an appropriate remuneration package to the worker. The
worker has brought into the Bank experience and expertise
(details supplied to the Court) which did not exist prior to
his appointment and it is not reasonable that in the light of
the major commitment he has given to the Bank in his present
employment, that he should not receive an appropriate
remuneration package. The worker now reports to a Director
in the organisation and is the only individual reporting to a
Director who is not graded appropriately to reflect the
duties and responsibilities he carries out. It is only fair
and reasonable that the worker should be upgraded in line
with that of his peers.
2. The Bank has never substantiated its refusal to consider
the worker's claim. There has been no job evaluation
exercise carried out in the organisation for some
considerable period and certainly the Association has no
input in relation to such an exercise. The Association
believes that the worker's job has a major contribution to
make to the organisation as a whole and on a comparative
basis there is no reason why he should not be upgraded. The
Bank's refusal to consider the worker's request or engage in
an objective exercise with a view to reaching a solution is
totally and utterly unreasonable. We believe that it is only
fair and reasonable that his present position should be
upgraded in line with similar responsibilities within the
organisation.
3. Despite this discontent the worker has carried out his
duties and responsibilities in both an honourable and
efficient manner. (Details supplied to the Court). His
contribution to the magazine has been enormous and indeed
contrast should be made between this magazine and other
magazines within the Bank as a whole.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is being
appealed because of the grading of the worker's present job
and his remuneration package. Upgrading was not recommended
on the grounds that the Rights Commissioners terms of
reference did not permit him to discount an external
consultancy exercise initiated by the Bank. This is
unacceptable to the Association because the consultant was
engaged in total secrecy to assess the worker's position as
Premises Administration Manager. The criteria used were
inappropriate and resulted in a serious misrepresentation and
underestimation of the worker's responsibilities. Banking
and financial criteria were applied whereas the worker's
duties, talents and aspirations are not related to these
areas. The Rights Commissioner also recommended that the
worker be re-offered and accept entry to the Banks
Enhancement Remuneration scheme despite the Association's
objections that the scheme is unethical, coercive, divisive
and altogether unacceptable.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has progressed from an officer (grade 5) to
management (grade 6) which he achieved in 1982. The worker
received merit salary increases each year until he reached
the maximum point of his salary range. He also received an
individual merit payment (details supplied to the Court). He
has not applied for any more senior positions advertised from
time to time within the Bank. The worker is at the first
management grade and the Bank can find no grounds for
upgrading the post. Typically the next grade (7) is that of
a Branch Manager which would carry significant
responsibilities in the lending, business development and
staff areas.
2. Difficult periods have occurred over the years with the
worker (details supplied to the Court). His current position
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90646 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2891
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND FINANCE
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Association against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation CW197/90 concerning the grievances of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Bank in 1977 as a general services
officer. In 1982, he was promoted to the position of Manager
Establishment Services (grade 6) and he has remained at that grade
since. The worker submitted a grievance to Management on the 22nd
September, 1989 regarding the grading of his job and remuneration
package. The grievance was investigated by an executive director
of the Bank and rejected in a letter dated 15th December, 1989
The Association summarised the grievances as follows:
1. The need for agreed job spec specifying the range of duties
to be carried out by the worker.
2. Agreed remuneration package to reflect the intricate and
major responsibilities carried out by the worker.
3. Enhanced working conditions to reflect the status and role of
a Manager in the Company.
4. A developmental programme to be agreed between the worker and
BIF to ensure his continued advancement within the Bank.
The Association on the 19th December, referred the dispute to the
Rights Commissioner Service for investigation and recommendation.
Rights Commissioner's hearings were held on 15th March, 19th April
and 7th May, 1990 and the Rights Commissioner issued the following
findings and recommendation on 2nd September, 1990.
FINDINGS
The Association has condensed the range of the worker
grievances into 4 categories. I listed these as (a) to (d)
in paragraph 2. I have noted that the worker reports to the
Director - Finance and Systems, in respect of all his duties.
Despite comments by the Association on the consultancy report
there is no evidence to suggest that it was other than
objective and impartial. I am not in a position to question
Management's right to determine salary structures, nor to
negate a skilled comprehensive job evaluation. My function
is to determine whether the worker has been treated fairly
within the structures, both in remuneration, treatment and
opportunity. I can not find substance to much of the
matters in dispute.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Bank offers and the worker accepts the
following:
(a) The Manager and the worker meet to clarify the exact
role and responsibilities involved in the position of
Manager - Premises Administration (in effect a detailed
job description)
(b) The Bank re-offers to the worker entry to the E.R.S. and
that he accepts this without condition and within a 1
month period of completion of (a) above,
(c) And in addition, following completion of (a) above the
Bank reviews the working conditions and environment of
Mr Molloy
(d) The Bank determines areas of Training opportunity which
might be appropriate to the career development of the
worker.
Both the Manager and the worker were named in the Rights
Commissioner' recommendation.
The Association rejected the recommendation and by letter
dated 1st November, 1990, appealed it to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing was held on 26 February, 1991.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association believes quite firmly that there is an
immediate requirement on the Bank to upgrade the worker's job
in line with other jobs within the organisation and to apply
an appropriate remuneration package to the worker. The
worker has brought into the Bank experience and expertise
(details supplied to the Court) which did not exist prior to
his appointment and it is not reasonable that in the light of
the major commitment he has given to the Bank in his present
employment, that he should not receive an appropriate
remuneration package. The worker now reports to a Director
in the organisation and is the only individual reporting to a
Director who is not graded appropriately to reflect the
duties and responsibilities he carries out. It is only fair
and reasonable that the worker should be upgraded in line
with that of his peers.
2. The Bank has never substantiated its refusal to consider
the worker's claim. There has been no job evaluation
exercise carried out in the organisation for some
considerable period and certainly the Association has no
input in relation to such an exercise. The Association
believes that the worker's job has a major contribution to
make to the organisation as a whole and on a comparative
basis there is no reason why he should not be upgraded. The
Bank's refusal to consider the worker's request or engage in
an objective exercise with a view to reaching a solution is
totally and utterly unreasonable. We believe that it is only
fair and reasonable that his present position should be
upgraded in line with similar responsibilities within the
organisation.
3. Despite this discontent the worker has carried out his
duties and responsibilities in both an honourable and
efficient manner. (Details supplied to the Court). His
contribution to the magazine has been enormous and indeed
contrast should be made between this magazine and other
magazines within the Bank as a whole.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is being
appealed because of the grading of the worker's present job
and his remuneration package. Upgrading was not recommended
on the grounds that the Rights Commissioners terms of
reference did not permit him to discount an external
consultancy exercise initiated by the Bank. This is
unacceptable to the Association because the consultant was
engaged in total secrecy to assess the worker's position as
Premises Administration Manager. The criteria used were
inappropriate and resulted in a serious misrepresentation and
underestimation of the worker's responsibilities. Banking
and financial criteria were applied whereas the worker's
duties, talents and aspirations are not related to these
areas. The Rights Commissioner also recommended that the
worker be re-offered and accept entry to the Banks
Enhancement Remuneration scheme despite the Association's
objections that the scheme is unethical, coercive, divisive
and altogether unacceptable.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has progressed from an officer (grade 5) to
management (grade 6) which he achieved in 1982. The worker
received merit salary increases each year until he reached
the maximum point of his salary range. He also received an
individual merit payment (details supplied to the Court). He
has not applied for any more senior positions advertised from
time to time within the Bank. The worker is at the first
management grade and the Bank can find no grounds for
upgrading the post. Typically the next grade (7) is that of
a Branch Manager which would carry significant
responsibilities in the lending, business development and
staff areas.
2. Difficult periods have occurred over the years with the
worker (details supplied to the Court). His current position
of Manager - Premises Administration should be viewed in the
light of the Bank finding a suitable role for the worker
which would be required by the Bank, would also utilise the
workers experience and abilities and assist in relation to
his career needs. The Bank does not accept that the position
is too onerous for the allocated grading or that at any time
he has been unfairly or badly treated. His grievance has
been investigated internally by an Executive Director who had
a lengthly meeting with the worker and took full
consideration of all the facts. In issuing his findings by
letter on the 15th December, 1989 it should be noted that the
Director drew attention to the importance of harmonious
relationships and to the absence of conflict in the working
environment. It was suggested that the worker should pay
particular attention to his performance and contribution in
this regard. A grievance document submitted in January 1989
was dealt with through direct contact between the worker and
his manager.
This dispute has been further dealt with over 3 hearings by a
Rights Commissioner. The Bank is prepared to accept the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
Having considered all the submissions and documentation presented
to the Court and having considered the details of the Rights
Commissioner's investigation and recommendation the Court is
satisfied that the aforementioned recommendation is reasonable and
should be accepted by the parties.
The Court accordingly does not uphold the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman