Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93309 Case Number: LCR14177 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
Investigation arising out of L.C.R. 13601 concerning special payments made to some workers in the Bank of Ireland Area West.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing.
In the course of the evidence, the Bank did not identify any
special factor which, in normal circumstances, could be expected
to produce a superior work performance by staff not involved in
the dispute when compared with that of other staff. In the
absence of such a factor, the Court considers that the disparity
in the outcome of the special merit payment assessment in Area
West, as between those involved in the dispute and those who were
not, was such that it was statistically inexplicable unless it was
related in some way to the dispute.
Having considered the implications of the situation and having
regard to the specific requirements of the clarification of Labour
Court Recommendation 13601 that "staff should not be at any
disadvantage in their employment arising from their activity
during the dispute", the Court recommends that the position be
rectified through a further special merit assessment in Area West
covering a post dispute period and involving staff who did not
benefit from the last assessment. This assessment should be
distinct from the next scheduled general assessment.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93309 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14177
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Investigation arising out of L.C.R. 13601 concerning special
payments made to some workers in the Bank of Ireland Area West.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There are 1020 workers employed in the Bank's Area West,
of whom 76 are managers. In January, 1993, the Bank made
payments to 189 workers below the rank of manager for what it
termed consistent significant achievements and superior
performance and commitment in view of the Area's financial
results for the previous year. The main method of payment was
the awarding of additional increments or overscale in the case
of those who were at the top of their scale. The list was
drawn up by the Regional Managers and payment was authoritised
by the Area General Manager. Of the workers in Area West who
received a payment, 65% worked during the dispute while 35%
did not.
2. The Association conducted a survey of the Area to discover
the breakdown of payments between those who worked during the
strike and those who did not. The Association has 758 members
in Area West and in its survey it discovered that 61 members
received payments.
3. The Association wrote to the Bank on 12th February, 1993,
indicating that the distribution of payments was in
contravention of LCR13601. The parties met on 21st April,
1993, at which the Bank outlined the criteria which it had
used to select workers for payment.
4. The dispute was not resolved by the parties and the
Association wrote to the Labour Court on 27th April, 1993
seeking a Labour Court investigation under the terms of the
addendum to LCR13601. A Labour Court investigation under
Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was held
on 16th July, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The payments made by the Bank are quite significant and
clearly disadvantage workers who supported the strike in 1992.
Despite specific enquiries, the Bank has been unable to show
that some form of consistent and methodical logic was used to
apply the criteria in order to select workers for the
payments. The breakdown of the payment (details supplied)
leads the Association to believe that a process was used to
disadvantage its members.
2. The scale of the perceived injustice is that a small
minority of the Association's members received payments while
the vast majority of non-members received payments. The
majority of the Association's members did not qualify for the
payments because of their support for the 1992 strike. As a
result, these workers have been disadvantaged in their
employment which is a direct contravention of LCR13601. The
Association is seeking that the Court restore the monetary
imbalance caused by the January payments.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is an established management practice in the Bank to
award special payments to individuals whose performances
merited such recognition. In Area West, the payments were
made on a detailed set of criteria relating to performance
issues (details supplied). Payments were made to workers who
took industrial action as well as those who worked. During
the course of the year all workers received other enhancements
to their remuneration packages (details supplied).
2. The Management in Area West are willing to stand over the
basis and criteria used for the payments. They reject the
allegations of the Association. Management must have the
right to recognise and reward good performance. By its nature
such an exercise will only involve a small number of workers.
To apply artificial ratios will undermine the process and
render it unworkable. The payment is discretionary and there
can be no entitlement to it.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing.
In the course of the evidence, the Bank did not identify any
special factor which, in normal circumstances, could be expected
to produce a superior work performance by staff not involved in
the dispute when compared with that of other staff. In the
absence of such a factor, the Court considers that the disparity
in the outcome of the special merit payment assessment in Area
West, as between those involved in the dispute and those who were
not, was such that it was statistically inexplicable unless it was
related in some way to the dispute.
Having considered the implications of the situation and having
regard to the specific requirements of the clarification of Labour
Court Recommendation 13601 that "staff should not be at any
disadvantage in their employment arising from their activity
during the dispute", the Court recommends that the position be
rectified through a further special merit assessment in Area West
covering a post dispute period and involving staff who did not
benefit from the last assessment. This assessment should be
distinct from the next scheduled general assessment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
20th August, 1993. Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.