Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9326 Case Number: LCR13954 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
13601
Recommendation:
5. It is clear to the Court that the claimant in this case had a
higher profile in the phased industrial action of 1992 than many
of his colleagues who also took part. For that reason, it was
incumbent on the bank not only to ensure that he was not
subsequently disadvantaged but also to ensure that the position
was seen to be so.
Despite the Bank statement that it conformed to usual practice,
the Court is satisfied that the written notice of transfer was
defective in so far as it was shorter than the prescribed and
agreed time scale. Against the background referred to above, the
Court considers that this shortcoming was open to
misinterpretation even though the transfer was subsequently
postponed.
The Court does not accept as convincing the Association's
arguments on the commercial aspects of the transfer or on the loss
of shift-premium. However in view of the defective notice and to
remove any question of doubt which it may have created, the Court
finds that the claimant should not be transferred from his present
position before 1st May, 1993.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9326 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13954
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker contrary to the
terms of L.C.R. 13601.
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 8th January, 1993 advising of the
alleged transfer of a worker as a result of the dispute. A
Labour Court investigation subsequently took place on 18th
January, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
3. The worker is employed in the grade of Assistant Manager
in the Bank's Airport branch and is primarily involved in the
branch's foreign exchange service. The worker has been
employed by the Bank since 1963 and has worked at 9 different
locations. He was appointed to the Airport branch in
November, 1986.
4. The worker was advised by telephone by his Manager on 2nd
December, 1992, that he was to be transferred to the Bank's
Balbriggan branch with effect from 14th December, 1992. The
Association objected on the worker's behalf and the transfer
was deferred to 11th January, 1993 to allow a meeting to take
place. A meeting took place on 7th January, 1992. No
progress was made and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under the terms of L.C.R. 13601.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was informed on 2nd December, 1992 that he was
to transfer to the Bank's Balbriggan branch with effect from
14th December, 1992. The method of notification is
unsatisfactory and in breach of the Transferability Agreement
(details supplied). If the transfer took place the worker
would lose his shift premium of #8,000 per annum. This would
be a severe penalty given the worker's commitment to the
Airport branch following its re-organisation in 1990 (details
supplied). The Bank is in breach of the Agreement as it did
not agree to leaving the worker in situ while his grievance
was being processed.
2. The Association questions the validity of the reasons for
the transfer as put forward by the Bank. It involves a direct
swap at the busiest time of the year for the Airport branch.
Christmas is a time when an experienced Assistant Manager is
required for the smooth operation of business at the Airport
Branch. The Bank state the reason for transfer as being "a
change in focus for the Balbriggan branch". The facts are
that the worker has more to contribute to the Airport branch
as he has a customer base. The commercial requirements of
Balbriggan would appear to be better served by the experienced
officer in situ. The worker has no business contacts in
Balbriggan.
3. The move provides no meaningful self-development for the
worker. It penalises him because of the unexpected loss of
#8,000 per annum. The worker was one of only 3 Assistant
Managers in foreign banking who were on strike during the
dispute. The worker who is to replace him worked during the
dispute. The transfer to assist with a "change in focus" by
the Balbriggan branch was not discussed with either the worker
or the Balbriggan branch Manager. The worker is widely
experienced, having worked in 4 locations since he was
appointed Assistant Manager in 1974. The commercial needs of
both branches do not support the reasons for transfer as
stated by the Bank (details supplied). The timing of the
transfer would seem to indicate an element of indecent haste.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Transferability is a condition of employment for all of
the Bank's workers. This fact is recognised in the
Transferability Agreement of 1986 (details supplied).
Transfers take place on a constant and frequent basis to
effectively run the Bank's operations and accommodate the
individual career and development needs of workers. The
worker's transfer was activated in the normal way using
standard criteria. It was decided that a more concentrated
focus on business development was required for the Balbriggan
branch. To support the change of emphasis a change of
personnel at assistant manager level was deemed necessary.
Following consideration of the options, the worker was chosen
as the most suitable candidate (details supplied).
2. Transfers within the banking system are not unusual and
since the dispute 301 transfers have taken place. A breakdown
of the transfers between those workers who were on strike and
those who remained at work shows an evenhanded approach by the
Bank (detail supplied). In the particular case of the worker,
administrative difficulties led to the delay in the issue of
the written transfer notice. This was part of the reason for
the postponement of the transfer. A victimisation allegation
cannot be supported by the fact that the change only involves
2 workers. Most transfers operate as direct exchanges. The
fact that the transfer was to occur in December is of no
significance as there is no limitation as to when transfers
can take place. Since 1982, 38 workers have transferred out
of the Airport branch and all have lost their shift allowance.
3. The worker's role in the strike was no different to
thousands of others and he is not being treated any
differently as a result. The worker is not a branch
representative of the Association nor does he hold any office
with the Association. Since the dispute there is evidence to
suggest that the Association has been using victimisation as
an issue to support transfer appeals even where the
individual's reason for dissatisfaction is other than
victimisation (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is clear to the Court that the claimant in this case had a
higher profile in the phased industrial action of 1992 than many
of his colleagues who also took part. For that reason, it was
incumbent on the bank not only to ensure that he was not
subsequently disadvantaged but also to ensure that the position
was seen to be so.
Despite the Bank statement that it conformed to usual practice,
the Court is satisfied that the written notice of transfer was
defective in so far as it was shorter than the prescribed and
agreed time scale. Against the background referred to above, the
Court considers that this shortcoming was open to
misinterpretation even though the transfer was subsequently
postponed.
The Court does not accept as convincing the Association's
arguments on the commercial aspects of the transfer or on the loss
of shift-premium. However in view of the defective notice and to
remove any question of doubt which it may have created, the Court
finds that the claimant should not be transferred from his present
position before 1st May, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________
15th February, 1993. Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.