Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92459 Case Number: LCR13779 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F. |
Rephasing of P.E.S.P. general pay increases for Senior Administrative grades.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, previous
Labour Court recommendations and the terms of the settlement of
October, 1991 the Court is of the view that concession of the
Union's claim is not warranted.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92459 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13779
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Rephasing of P.E.S.P. general pay increases for Senior
Administrative grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1991 the Bank awarded a special pay increase to
Senior Administrative Officer/S6 and SH grades in line with the
Goeghegan special pay awards to the Assistant Principal and
Principal Officer grades in the Civil Service. In October 1991
the Bank agreed to bring forward the P.E.S.P. general pay
increases by eleven months for all grades from Clerical Officer to
Senior Executive Officer, bringing them into line with the
equivalent Civil Service grades. There were other elements to
this deal including a lump-sum, career breaks, attendance bonuses
and a house-loan scheme.
The Union claims that the rephasing of the P.E.S.P. should be
extended to the senior staff (SAO/S6 and SH) to bring them into
line with their comparators in the Civil Service, and with the
Clerical and Administrative groups within the Bank. The Bank
rejects the claim, maintaining that the relationship between its
SAO/S6 and SH grades and the A.P.O. and P.O. Civil Service grades
has remained broadly constant over a 10-year period.
The dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference at the
Labour Relations Commission on the 17th of February 1992, at which
agreement was not reached. After further local discussions the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of August 1992
in accordance with S26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st of September 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The eleven-month delay between the P.E.S.P. payments in
the Civil Service and in the Bank means that since 1/1/91 the
SAO/S6 and SH grades are out of line ( by the P.E.S.P.
percentage) with comparable Civil Service grades for eleven
months of every year.
2. The timing of the P.E.S.P. has been brought into line
with the Civil Service for the majority of other grades in
the Bank. This leaves SAO/S6 and SH grades in an anomalous
position not only with regard to comparable Civil Service
grades but also in relation to other Clerical and
Administrative grades in the Bank.
3. The Bank has used the Civil Service as the basis for
determining its pay policy in all recent negotiations, and
has no justification in making an exception for a small group
of staff.
4. Extending the logic of relativity with the Civil Service
to all groups in the Bank will lead to greater stability with
no danger of counter-claims within the Bank.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank's SAO/S6 and scale H grades are not directly
equivalent to the A.P.O. and P.O. grades in the Civil
Service. This relationship is only historical in as much as
the pay increases in the Bank grades are broadly in line with
increases in the Civil Service grades.
2. The Goeghegan-based awards substantially widened
differentials between the Bank's senior and junior grades.
The significant change in the pay structure presented an
emotive issue and the Union embarked on a course of
industrial action in pursuit of a pay increase for the junior
grades. After negotiations in October 1991, the Banks agreed
to narrow the pay differentials by agreeing to grant a number
of benefits for the junior grades, the principal being the
payment of the P.E.S.P. general pay awards on the same dates
as applied in the Civil Service. The union is now
effectively seeking to widen these differentials again.
3. Concession of the claim would undermine the current
agreement with the junior grades and de-stabilise the
status-quo in the relative pay-levels of senior and junior
grades. It would also re-open the grievances of junior grades
which the Union supported in their previous industrial
action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, previous
Labour Court recommendations and the terms of the settlement of
October, 1991 the Court is of the view that concession of the
Union's claim is not warranted.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
5th October, 1992 -----------------------------
M.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.