Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92654 Case Number: LCR13928 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the alleged victimisation and harassment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having fully examined the submissions and oral arguments of
the parties, the Court does not consider that the Union has
established that post-April 1992 employment difficulties between
the claimant and the Bank relate to or results from the claimant's
involvement in the April dispute. In the circumstances the Court
does not find in favour of the Union.
The Court has refrained from commenting on other aspects of the
case as these may be at issue under the Grievance Procedure.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92654 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13928
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged victimisation and harassment of
a worker.
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. Under the terms of the Recommendation, the Association
wrote to the Court on 3rd September, 1992 advising of the
alleged victimisation and harassment of a worker as a result
of the dispute. A Labour Court investigation subsequently
took place on 14th January, 1993 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
3. The worker is employed at the grade of Bank Manager in the
Bank's St. Patrick's Bridge Branch in Cork. He manages
accounts and is responsible for a portfolio of loans. The
worker alleges that since the end of the dispute he has been
victimised by the Bank as follows:
(i) The worker received an adverse appraisal which he
alleges is in breach of the Bank's policies in this area
and a Bank/Association Agreement.
(ii) The worker's lending portfolio (details supplied) was
investigated on the instructions of the Regional
Manager. The worker alleges that this was contrary to
established procedures and practices.
(iii) The worker alleges that he has been denied access to
information he requires to enable him to respond to the
criticisms of his performance.
4. The Bank has denied that any of the issues referred to by
the worker result from the strike. It claims that the dispute
should not be dealt with under the terms of L.C.R. 13601. The
issues in dispute are the subject of a grievance taken by the
worker under the agreed grievance procedures.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has a history of difficulties in his dealings
with his employers. Since the completion of the strike in
April, 1992, the Bank has taken a number of actions against
him which can only be described as an attempt to victimise and
harass him as a result of his participation in the strike. He
was one of very few Bank Managers who took part in the strike.
2. In May, 1992, the worker received an appraisal from his
superior. The appraisal was the second in a row which was
clearly in breach of an Association/Bank Agreement and the
Bank's own policies. The first appraisal was set aside. The
second appraisal which followed the dispute was not set aside
despite the fact that the Bank accepts that it was in breach
of the Agreement. The appraisal will remain on the worker's
record and will militate against him.
3. Following the strike, a "special" investigation into the
worker's lending portfolio was ordered by the Regional
Manager. This action was unprecedented and the Association is
unaware of any similar investigation ever undertaken. The
investigation was contrary to normal procedures and was aimed
at discrediting the worker. He was not given an opportunity
to represent himself in the normal way to the auditor prior to
the presentation of the report. The worker has subsequently
had difficulty in securing information to enable him to
respond to the criticisms and allegations. The present
position is that the worker has had all his loan sanctioning
powers taken away from him (details supplied).
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issues which have been referred to the Court are in no
way related to the worker's position during the strike but are
based on overall poor relations between the parties. The
worker is presently taking the issues, among others, through
the grievance procedures and he is represented by the
Association and his legal adviser. The issues have no place
before the Court under the terms of L.C.R. 13601.
2. The question of the performance appraisal pre-dates the
strike. The Bank management had been seeking to review the
worker's performance since February, 1992. Attempts to carry
out the performance appraisal in February and March were
unsuccessful (details supplied). The branch Manager on 26th
May, finally completed an appraisal with an unsatisfactory
rating being deemed appropriate. The Bank acknowledges that
procedures were not strictly followed and it agreed to defer
the final appraisal for 3 months to allow the worker to
improve his performance. The issue of itself clearly predates
the strike.
3. Arising from problems which had surfaced in relation to
loans previously handled by the worker in a previous branch,
the Regional Manager requested the area credit department to
carry out a study of the worker's loan portfolio. Breaches in
lending procedures were found. The issue became part of the
worker's grievance and it is the Bank's contention that the
agreed grievance procedures is the appropriate place to deal
with the issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having fully examined the submissions and oral arguments of
the parties, the Court does not consider that the Union has
established that post-April 1992 employment difficulties between
the claimant and the Bank relate to or results from the claimant's
involvement in the April dispute. In the circumstances the Court
does not find in favour of the Union.
The Court has refrained from commenting on other aspects of the
case as these may be at issue under the Grievance Procedure.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________
1st February, 1993. Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.