Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92152 Case Number: LCR13601 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: BANKS' STAFF RELATIONS COMMITTEE - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
A dispute regarding salary increases.
Recommendation:
3. 1. Having regard to the reasons set out in the preceding
sections, the Court recommends that the I.B.O.A. and the
Banks, as represented by the B.S.R.C., in resolution of the
present dispute and with a view to improving the industrial
relations climate in the industry, accept:-
- that the 1987 Agreement is an on-going agreement with
the original benefits and commitments continuing to
apply to both sides unless and until changed by
agreement; that they jointly review its operation to
establish the extent of its effectiveness in relation
to its original objectives and in relation to the
benefits anticipated and the undertakings given by each
side when they signed the agreement.
- that from 1/5/92, the I.B.O.A. accepts the right of the
Banks to have a core opening time running uninterrupted
from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. each working day other
than Thursdays when it will run from 10.00 a.m. to the
present closing time of 5.00 p.m.; that the I.B.O.A.
should not maintain a principled objection to an
earlier opening time, in any particular branch,
provided such an arrangement is acceptable to the staff
involved.
- that in addition to the standard payment of 3% to be
paid to the claimant staff on 1/5/92 under the terms of
the P.E.S.P., the Banks pay a further 3% under Clause 3
of that Agreement on the same date.
- that on acceptance of this recommendation by both
sides, the Banks pay the claimant staff a once-off lump
sum payment of #750 each.
- that the Banks agree to grant an additional one day of
annual leave to the claimant staff starting in the
1992 leave year.
- that the parties agree to a total review of industrial
relations in the industry to be undertaken by the
Labour Relations Commission or such other Independent
body as the parties may agree upon.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92152 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13601
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BANKS' STAFF RELATIONS COMMITTEE
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding salary increases.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Court has given detailed consideration to the
extensive written and oral submissions made by the parties in
the joint session of the hearing of this case and to the
arguments advanced in discussion with them individually.
2. The parties had diametrically opposed approaches to the
issues in question.
For its part, the Association insisted that its claim was
"purely and simply a salary claim" for an increase of 6-6.50%
and fell to be considered on its merits, divorced from any
conditions which the Bank might seek to impose. The basis of
the claim as argued by the Association rested mainly on higher
basic pay increases paid to Management during the course of
the P.N.R., the high level of Bank profits and the staff
contribution to productivity. The Association considered
that, with goodwill on the part of the Banks, a stratagem
could be found to enable the payment be made within the terms
of the P.E.S.P.
The Banks' rejection of the Association's claim rested on
considerations of competitiveness and cost containment and on
a strict application of the terms of the P.E.S.P. In the
context of these considerations the Banks proposed a salary
increase of 2% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. agreement in
return for improved opening hours and a re-affirmation of
commitment to the 1987 technology and change agreement with
particular regard to insurance and insurance related products.
EXAMINATION OF CLAIM:
3. The Association's claim for a salary increase was
presented in various forms at Bank Tribunal hearings in
November, 1989 and October, 1991 and was rejected on both
occasions. As the failure of the claim was attributed to the
currency of the P.N.R., the Association has now submitted it
under the terms of P.E.S.P. which became effective in the
Banks from 1/5/91.
In relation to the Association's assertion that basic salary
increases above the terms of the P.N.R. were paid to managers
during the currency of that agreement, the Court has verified
that a minority of managers did in fact benefit in this way.
However, in the Court's view, neither the number of managers
involved nor the extent to which they benefitted (which was
considerably less than the Association's claim) was such as to
create an inequity that would justify additional payment to
the 13,000 claimant staff.
In the context of the P.N.R., the ground of profitability of
the Banks, as advanced by the Association, was not an
appropriate basis of claim as consideration of such matters
related only to questions of ability to pay the terms of the
agreement. A similar position obtains in relation to the
P.E.S.P.
The Court does not consider that the Association established a
case for past productivity which would fall to be dealt with
under P.E.S.P.
In the light of these considerations, the Court does not find
that the claim presented by the Association is well grounded
and, therefore, cannot recommend its concession.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH:
4. The Court considers that a practical and justifiable
coalescence of the staff aspiration for increased salary
payments and the Banks' concerns for competitiveness and cost
containment can only be realised through the utilisation of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. Accordingly, the Court considered
the proposals put forward by the Banks for such an agreement.
Opening Hours:
A Tribunal finding in September, 1987 ruled that the
Banks were fully entitled to negotiate an agreement on
extended opening hours, recommended speedy negotiations
and set a deadline of 30th June, 1988 for their
conclusion. Despite this and the fact that the Banks
offered lump sum payments in return, the parties to date
have been unable to accommodate each other in relation
to the matter. In the Court's view the present
aspirations of staff and the needs of the business
provide an opportunity for its resolution.
The Court notes the undertaking by the Banks that
extended opening hours would result in significant extra
employment of permanent part-time staff. The Court also
notes the acceptance of the parties that a burden of
training would fall on existing staff in the initial
stages of revised openings arrangements.
1987 Agreement:
The 1987 Agreement is an on-going agreement on the
introduction of change in such diverse areas as
technology, organisation, operation and systems. It
divides change into categories of on-going change,
Foreseen Significant Change and Unforeseen Significant
Change. "On-going" change is defined in the agreement
and "Foreseen Significant Change" was documented in
letters from each of the individual Banks to the
Association in 1987. The contents of the letters were
accepted by the Association. The parties agreed that
any item not reasonably falling within the "on-going"
definition and not contained in the letters outlining
"foreseen significant change" constituted "unforeseen
significant change". A feature of the agreement is that
the only procedural arrangements set out in it relate to
"unforeseen significant change". The other forms of
change are excluded from these procedures, thereby
implying their full acceptance by the Association.
The Banks' claim that this agreement was bought and paid
for in 1987 and has operated effectively since then.
They are concerned that a recent claim by the
Association in respect of one important element of
business which they state is covered by the agreement
and has operated for some years, i.e. the sale of
insurance and insurance products is an attempt by the
Association to get additional payment and an initial
step in unravelling the agreement.
The Association, for its part, states that it is
entitled to make such claims under the acceptance by the
Banks in the agreement of the Association's role in
defending and seeking to improve the position of their
members in regard to the possible implications for them
of commercial decisions. The Association also argues
that some of the change which occurred under "on-going"
or "foreseen significant" change was so radical that it
could not reasonably have been foreseen when the
agreement was signed; it is not the objective of the
Association to impede change but to negotiate
appropriate arrangements for the staff in relation to
it.
The Court considers that a freely negotiated agreement
must be honoured by the parties to it, in the spirit and
the letter, for its specified duration or in the absence
of a concluding date until such time as it is
re-negotiated voluntarily. At the same time, the Court
does not consider that agreements should be immutable
for all time and believes that where circumstances
change substantially over time an examination of the
situation should not be unreasonably withheld.
The 1987 Agreement does not have a specified duration
and its termination requires mutual agreement. The fact
that its operation was open to review after three years
indicates that neither party considered it to be of a
short-term nature. It is in operation for little more
than four years and has continuing commitments and
benefits for both parties.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the
parties are obliged to honour its terms as an on-going
agreement unless these terms are amended by agreement as
provided for in Section 10(2). The Court also considers
that the parties should now review the operation of the
agreement as provided for in Section 10 and that the
Banks should provide such information as is required by
the Association to allow it participate fully in the
review.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ATMOSPHERE:
5. Industrial action was in progress prior to the
commencement of the Court's investigation and regrettably
escalated during the course of the talks. While a tension
between the parties could be expected in these circumstances,
the Court sensed in its discussions that a deep and more
fundamental mistrust of each other pervaded the
management/union relationship.
The Court is concerned that the problem seems rooted more in
attitudes than in procedures and is of the view that if the
situation is not speedily and effectively addressed it will
give rise to serious industrial relations problems into the
future.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. 1. Having regard to the reasons set out in the preceding
sections, the Court recommends that the I.B.O.A. and the
Banks, as represented by the B.S.R.C., in resolution of the
present dispute and with a view to improving the industrial
relations climate in the industry, accept:-
- that the 1987 Agreement is an on-going agreement with
the original benefits and commitments continuing to
apply to both sides unless and until changed by
agreement; that they jointly review its operation to
establish the extent of its effectiveness in relation
to its original objectives and in relation to the
benefits anticipated and the undertakings given by each
side when they signed the agreement.
- that from 1/5/92, the I.B.O.A. accepts the right of the
Banks to have a core opening time running uninterrupted
from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. each working day other
than Thursdays when it will run from 10.00 a.m. to the
present closing time of 5.00 p.m.; that the I.B.O.A.
should not maintain a principled objection to an
earlier opening time, in any particular branch,
provided such an arrangement is acceptable to the staff
involved.
- that in addition to the standard payment of 3% to be
paid to the claimant staff on 1/5/92 under the terms of
the P.E.S.P., the Banks pay a further 3% under Clause 3
of that Agreement on the same date.
- that on acceptance of this recommendation by both
sides, the Banks pay the claimant staff a once-off lump
sum payment of #750 each.
- that the Banks agree to grant an additional one day of
annual leave to the claimant staff starting in the
1992 leave year.
- that the parties agree to a total review of industrial
relations in the industry to be undertaken by the
Labour Relations Commission or such other Independent
body as the parties may agree upon.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd March, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.