Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92593 Case Number: LCR13897 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BANKS' STAFF RELATIONS COMMITTEE - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the payment of the #1,000 lump sum arising out of Labour Court Recommendation No. 13601.
Recommendation:
5. Because of the complex considerations involved in the case,
the term "Claimant Staff" as used in Recommendation No. 13601 in
regard to the lump-sum payment was intended by the Court to mean
all staff covered by the claim who were employed by the Banks on
the date of acceptance of the Recommendation. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that the lump sum payment of #1,000 be made by
the Banks to all such staff irrespective of status - full-time,
part-time or temporary - who were employed by the Banks on the
relevant date. The Court did not intend the term "Claimant Staff"
to relate to persons who were not in the Banks' employment on that
date.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92593 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13897
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANKS' STAFF RELATIONS COMMITTEE
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of the #1,000 lump sum arising
out of Labour Court Recommendation No. 13601.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Arising from a dispute with the 4 main banks, Labour Court
Recommendation No. 13601 issued on 23rd March, 1992. It
stated inter-alia:-
"that on acceptance of this Recommendation by both sides,
the Banks pay the claimant staff a once-off lump sum
payment of #750 each".
The Recommendation was clarified by the Court by letter dated
15th April, 1992. The addendum to L.C.R. 13601 stated as
follows:-
"Bearing in mind that the Court intended that
recommendation L.C.R. 13601 would finalise the difficult
and long-running issues involved in this case, the Court
considers that any residual issues arising from the
recommendation or from the clarification given above
should be referred to the Court for final resolution.
If this is accepted the Court recommends that the
payment of #750 proposed in L.C.R. 13601 be increased to
#1,000".
2. A dispute arose between the parties on the issue of the
payment of the #1,000 lump sum to temporary, permanent
part-time workers and workers who were not in the Banks'
employment on a particular date, decided upon by the various
banks.
3. The Association's position is that all workers,
irrespective of status, who were involved in the original
claim and who are bound by the Labour Court addendum to accept
arbitration on all residual issues, are entitled to the
payment of the lump sum of #1,000. It is the Banks'
understanding that the #1,000 would be paid to
temporary/part-time workers on the "pro-rata principle" as
applied to hours worked or the duration of the temporary
contract. The A.I.B. bank decided to pay the full lump sum to
all workers in employment on 1st May, 1992.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Union
for hearing under the terms of L.C.R. 13601 and the addendum
of 15th May, 1992. The Union's letter of referral was dated
23rd September, 1992 (Section 20(2) of Industrial Relations
Act, 1969). The issues in dispute were the payment of the
lump sum of #1,000 to all of the Banks' workers and the
date(s) which should apply for the purposes of deciding
eligibility for payment. A Labour Court hearing took place on
17th November, 1992, the earliest date suitable to both
parties. A letter recommendation issued on 9th December,
1992.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wording used in L.C.R. 13601 was very clear and
specific that all "Claimant Staff" should be paid a once-off
lump sum payment. This was recognised by the Allied Irish
Bank which made the payment to all of its workers. The lump
sum payment was one of the positive elements included in
L.C.R. 13601 to encourage workers to vote to end the dispute.
All workers, irrespective of status, are bound by the terms of
the Recommendation.
2. There are temporary workers with a broken but ongoing
employment relationship with the Banks and who may not have
been at work during the dispute or part of it. These workers
are bound by the terms of L.C.R. 13601 and as "Claimant Staff"
should receive the #1,000 lump sum.
3. The Association is aware that all temporary and part-time
workers who worked during the strike were paid the full #1,000
lump sum. The Association has calculated that the cost of
conceding its claim would add just .50% to the costs already
incurred. The proper interpretation of L.C.R. 13601 was clear
and the Association advised its members accordingly. The
A.I.B. Bank interpreted the lump sum aspect of the
Recommendation in the same manner as had the Association. The
Banks were fully aware of the Association's understanding of
the Recommendation and how this was communicated to workers
prior to the vote on ending the strike (details supplied).
The Banks had a responsibility to advise the Association of
its interpretation of the Recommendation.
BANKS' ARGUMENTS'
4. 1. The Association's position regarding the payment of the
lump sum to all workers is out of line with general practice.
It is standard practice in industrial relations to apply the
"pro rata" principle to part-time workers and to take into
account both the duration and in some cases the expiry of
recent temporary contracts. Any other interpretation would go
against conventional practice and legislative provisions
(details supplied).
2. The Association's time frame for payment (20th January to
27th April) takes no account of short service, part-time
hours, temporary and terminated contracts. If the Union's
time frame was to be conceded some workers who may have worked
a few hours or whose contracts may have expired before the end
of the dispute would be entitled to a full lump sum payment.
3. The principal of pro-rata payments has only recently been
challenged by the Association. There are numerous examples of
this practice throughout industry (details supplied). The
principle has been accepted by S.I.P.T.U. in parallel
negotiations on behalf of other banks' staff. The pro-rata
payment to part-time workers forms part of the agreement with
S.I.P.T.U. The Banks' have implemented L.C.R. 13601 in a
conventional and equitable manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Because of the complex considerations involved in the case,
the term "Claimant Staff" as used in Recommendation No. 13601 in
regard to the lump-sum payment was intended by the Court to mean
all staff covered by the claim who were employed by the Banks on
the date of acceptance of the Recommendation. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that the lump sum payment of #1,000 be made by
the Banks to all such staff irrespective of status - full-time,
part-time or temporary - who were employed by the Banks on the
relevant date. The Court did not intend the term "Claimant Staff"
to relate to persons who were not in the Banks' employment on that
date.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
____________________
21st December, 1992. Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.