Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9135 Case Number: LCR13215 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WOODCHESTER BANK LIMITED - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning a salary increase.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties and taking note of the terms of Labour Court
Recommendations 12207 and 13071 which dealt with the issue, does
not recommend departure from the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Bank's offer of phase 3 of
the Programme for National Recovery be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9135 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13215
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: WOODCHESTER BANK LIMITED
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a salary increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Bank is the lease and instalment finance division of
Woodchester Investments plc with headquarters in Dublin and 8
branches around the country. There are 238 employees of whom
approximately 98 are covered by this claim. The Union has
accepted the terms of phases 1 and 2 of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.) for the years 1989 and 1990. The
Union served notice in 1990 that it would look for an
improvement on the terms of the PNR for the next increase due
from 1st January, 1991. The Bank rejected the claim and
offered the terms of phase 3 of the P.N.R. The Union are
seeking a 5% general round increase.
3. The dispute could not be resolved locally and was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on
13 November, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 10
December, 1990 at which no settlement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 21 December, 1990
and a Labour Court investigation took place on 20 February,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank is one of the most profitable of all financial
service companies in the country (details supplied to the
Court). The Union is not party to the PNR and is not
therefore bound by its terms and conditions. The terms of
the PNR were accepted by staff last year for a 12 month
period against a background where changes were taking place,
which have now secured the future of the Group and ensured
its financial success. In this context an increase of 5% is
both fair and reasonable.
2. The Bank over the past few years benefited from
flexibility and increased productivity from staff. Profit
per employee is in the region of #45,000 for 1989, compared
with #20,000 for the Associated Banks and #10,000 for the top
4 industrial companies. As against this, staff do not
receive the most beneficial terms and conditions of
employment in the sector in such areas as salary,
preferential home mortgage rates, pensions and profit sharing
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Union in its negotiations approached the matter of
salaries in a very creative fashion, exploring many avenues
in order that our members aspirations could be met. This
approach has met with intransigence from the Management of
the Bank who have said that they were restricted by the terms
of the PNR. It should be noted that there is nothing within
the terms of the PNR which restricts or excludes companies
exceeding its monetary terms. It is known that a number of
companies have entered into such deals where management have
shown a willingness to recognise staff aspirations. Some of
these companies would not have the performance or
profitability of the Bank.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In keeping with the practice within the financial
services sector the Bank, with the agreement of the Union,
applied phase I of the PNR for 1989 and phase 2 for 1990.
Phase 3 is currently on offer for 1991. The Bank believes
that nothing has altered the relative position of the Bank's
salary scales within the sector, which merits an increase in
excess of that provided by its competitors.
2. Terms and conditions of employment within the Bank are
in keeping with or superior to those provided by other first
class employers in financial services. The benefits of the
success of the Bank include security of employment and
increased employment levels. Unlike the Bank's competitors,
no redundancies have been sought and employment has increased
by 1/3 over the past 2 years which is in keeping with one of
the major objectives of the PNR. In previous recommendations
within the financial services sector, the Court has
recommended acceptance of the terms of the PNR. There are no
special circumstances which justify a departure in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties and taking note of the terms of Labour Court
Recommendations 12207 and 13071 which dealt with the issue, does
not recommend departure from the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Bank's offer of phase 3 of
the Programme for National Recovery be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman