Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9266 Case Number: LCR13558 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION - and - BANK OF IRELAND |
Alleged intimidation of employees.
Recommendation:
5. Part (i)+(ii) of the Union submission dealt with the question
of workers rights and management obligations to workers in times
of industrial conflict. The purpose of that part of the
submission was to have the Court determine how particular aspects
of the Management/Staff (union members) relationship should be
regulated in the context of industrial action.
Because the Management/Staff (union) relationship is a two-sided
matter, with rights and obligations on both sides, the Court
considers that the appropriate way to deal with the issues
involved is through the negotiation by the parties of a code of
conduct for such situations. The opportune time for such
negotiations is when there are no major industrial issues between
the parties. In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
parties negotiate such a code as soon as the industrial relations
climate settles. The assistance of the Labour Relations
Commission should be sought if such a course is deemed helpful by
the parties.
In part (iii) of its submission the Union made allegations of
intimidation of Union members by Management at one to one
interviews in various locations. The understandable reluctance of
the Union to present individual members who they claimed had been
intimidated and the fact that the Bank had not been advised of the
detail of such cases, made specific investigation of the
allegations by the Court impossible even though it was
acknowledged that meetings had taken place.
The Bank assured the Court that it had no policy or intent to
threaten or compromise staff because of their attitude to
industrial action. However, the Court accepts that one to one
interviewing of staff by Management on the question of industrial
action, can carry at least an implied threat.
As there are other means available to the Bank to exercise its
right to communicate with staff on issues which it wishes to put
directly to them, the Court recommends that, other than in
exceptional circumstances, - e.g. imminent threatened closure when
it would be essential to know who would be available for work -
the Bank should not persist in attempting to have meetings with an
individual member of its staff on any matter which the individual
clearly states is being handled by the Union on his/her behalf.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9266 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13558
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
and
BANK OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged intimidation of employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 17th December, 1991 the Association informed the Bank that
they would commence official industrial action on 20th January,
1992. The industrial action was initiated as a result of a secret
ballot vote of the Association's members. The Association claim
that since the notice of industrial action was served they have
received many complaints from staff of widespread intimidation.
The bank refutes the claim. The bank claims that, in the
circumstances such as the current industrial action, they have a
responsibility to inform staff of the risks involved in taking
industrial action in the present competitive commercial
environment. The Association referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Prior to the Court's investigation of the matter on 4th January,
1992, the Association agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The action taken by the Bank in insisting that management
conduct personal interviews with staff is a re-introduction of
the "boss/worker" relationship which, of its nature, is
unequitable. Even low-key questioning of staff's intentions
in this unequal environment, generates pressure on staff who
are unprepared for such interviews.
2. Management have a right to communicate their side of any
situation to the staff on a collective basis. Management may
also wish to alert staff to the economic consequences of
industrial action but the boundary between communication and
personal intimidation has been crossed on many occasions since
the notice of industrial action was served. Members have
being pressurised not to support the industrial action.
3. Each worker has the right to be represented by a
recognised Trade Union on all industrial relations matters and
any attempt to press workers into one-to-one interviews with
management is an infringement of the worker's right to Trade
Union representation. Trade Unions were established in order
to afford independent representation to workers and
counterbalance the absolute power of the employer.
4. Interviews have been conducted in an aggressive manner and
this represents intimidation. It is unacceptable that
management has threatened the livelihoods of the workers
concerned because they are involved in an official trade
dispute.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No specific allegations of intimidation have been put to
the Bank. The Bank are aware of the Association's allegations
of intimidation against "a Bank" from public statements made
at the members meetings. The Bank received no notification
that the Bank here concerned was the Bank accused of
intimidation.
2. The Bank do not accept that discussions between management
and their staff are "of themselves intimidatory". The Bank
have a responsibility to seek a resolution of the dispute and
to make staff aware of the facts as the bank sees them.
3. The Association claims the right to encourage staff to
support their position. Equally, management must have the
same right and indeed responsibility to inform staff and to
point out the necessity to protect business in the present
environment.
4. The Bank are aware that the Association has written to a
number of managers who are accused of intimidation. These
managers have found it necessary to refer the matter to their
solicitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Part (i)+(ii) of the Union submission dealt with the question
of workers rights and management obligations to workers in times
of industrial conflict. The purpose of that part of the
submission was to have the Court determine how particular aspects
of the Management/Staff (union members) relationship should be
regulated in the context of industrial action.
Because the Management/Staff (union) relationship is a two-sided
matter, with rights and obligations on both sides, the Court
considers that the appropriate way to deal with the issues
involved is through the negotiation by the parties of a code of
conduct for such situations. The opportune time for such
negotiations is when there are no major industrial issues between
the parties. In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
parties negotiate such a code as soon as the industrial relations
climate settles. The assistance of the Labour Relations
Commission should be sought if such a course is deemed helpful by
the parties.
In part (iii) of its submission the Union made allegations of
intimidation of Union members by Management at one to one
interviews in various locations. The understandable reluctance of
the Union to present individual members who they claimed had been
intimidated and the fact that the Bank had not been advised of the
detail of such cases, made specific investigation of the
allegations by the Court impossible even though it was
acknowledged that meetings had taken place.
The Bank assured the Court that it had no policy or intent to
threaten or compromise staff because of their attitude to
industrial action. However, the Court accepts that one to one
interviewing of staff by Management on the question of industrial
action, can carry at least an implied threat.
As there are other means available to the Bank to exercise its
right to communicate with staff on issues which it wishes to put
directly to them, the Court recommends that, other than in
exceptional circumstances, - e.g. imminent threatened closure when
it would be essential to know who would be available for work -
the Bank should not persist in attempting to have meetings with an
individual member of its staff on any matter which the individual
clearly states is being handled by the Union on his/her behalf.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_____________________
12th February, 1992 Chairman.
F.B./J.C.