Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93304 Case Number: LCR14151 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Labour Court investigation arising out of LCR13601 concerning the alleged victimisation of a worker in relation to his non-return to former duties subsequent to the industrial dispute.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considered the submissions of the parties in the
context of the clarification of LCR13601 given to the General
Secretary of the I.C.T.U. on 15th April, 1992, the IBOA circular
of 20th April and the I.B.S.R.C. letter to I.B.O.A. dated 29th
April.
The parties agreed at the hearing that, on conclusion of the 1992
dispute, the claimant had in fact returned to the duties for which
he was responsible immediately prior to the commencement of
industrial action. Accordingly the specific arrangements
mentioned in both the I.B.O.A. circular and I.B.S.R.C. letter
regarding the return to work were met.
However, shortly after the resumption of normal working, the
claimant's duties were changed. He was relieved of his
responsibilities for foreign exchange control and was assigned to
a cash control project. Later still, following on an
organisational restructuring and a work restructuring his
reporting relationship was revised and the level to which he
reported was reduced. The pertinent questions for the Court are:-
- did these changes disadvantage the claimant
- if so, did they arise from his involvement in the
industrial dispute.
Having considered the evidence presented, the Court considers that
there was a diminution of the claimant's responsibilities as a
result of his being relieved of the foreign exchange duties.
Generally speaking a reduction in responsibility coupled with a
lower-level reporting relationship in an organisation such as the
Bank can only be regarded as disadvantageous to the individual
concerned.
Because of the fact that the withdrawal of the foreign exchange
duties occurred so soon after the dispute it is understandable
that the claimant would feel there was a connection with his
involvement in that dispute.
The Court, however, is not convinced by the claimant's view in
that regard. The Court also notes that the revised reporting
relationship had an identical impact on other managers not
involved in the strike.
While the Court does not find grounds for recommending concession
of the Union claim it nevertheless considers that relationships
might be improved to the advantage of both parties if the Bank
were to give consideration to the claimants repeated assertions
that he was anxious to undertake additional duties. This avenue
could provide the best means of a mutually acceptable outcome to
the present impasse.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93304 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14151
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND
and
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Labour Court investigation arising out of LCR13601 concerning
the alleged victimisation of a worker in relation to his
non-return to former duties subsequent to the industrial dispute.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker joined the Bank in 1958 and was promoted to
manager level in January, 1976. In 1987, he was appointed to
his present branch at which he has held a number of different
responsibilities. In the period immediately prior to the
strike which was resolved in April, 1992, the worker had
responsibility for the cash centre and the foreign exchange at
his branch.
2. Prior to the strike, the worker's Association issued a
directive instructing its members not to collect fees and
charges for the sale of the Bank's products and services. The
worker was instructed by the Bank to ensure the continuance of
the collection of fees and charges relating to his
responsibilities for foreign exchange. The worker refused and
he was replaced by another manager.
3. Following the strike, the worker returned to work on 28th
April, 1992. He returned to his duties prior to the strike
including his foreign exchange functions. On 6th May, 1992,
the worker was informed by the Regional Manager that he was to
undertake an expanded cash operation and that with effect from
11th May, the worker was to pass over his responsibilities for
foreign exchange to another Manager. The worker was not
satisfied with his change in responsibilities and requested
the Bank to retain the status quo which existed prior to the
strike.
4. In a separate development the worker's branch was
amalgamated with a new region on 6th July, 1992 and a new
Manager was appointed to the worker's branch. A new
management structure was put in place. The worker, who up
until this reported to an Assistant General Manager, now had
to report to another manager (details supplied). The worker
viewed the change as a demotion and requested that the status
quo remain. The worker's request was refused.
5. Various local meetings took place between the worker and
his superiors and with the Association but no progress was
possible on either of the issues. The Association wrote to
the Labour Court on 23rd 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 took place on 12th July, 1993
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The "Return to Work Arrangements" agreed on 20th April
1992, states inter-alia that workers must be returned to their
former positions. The Bank's action in the worker's case is a
clear breach of the Arrangements. The worker was clearly not
returned to his former position. There were only 2 specific
exceptions agreed and the worker's branch was not one of them.
2. The loss of his foreign exchange duties was a diminution
of his existing duties and responsibilities. This was further
exacerbated when his reporting structure was changed. The
worker has tried to deal with the Bank in a positive and
constructive manner (details supplied). He is seeking
restoration to his pre-strike duties and responsibilities or
to duties of a commensurate level, with particular regard to
his reporting arrangements.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The return to work arrangements stipulated inter-alia
that, on the first day of resumption, all individuals would
return to their former positions in their former locations on
their existing terms and conditions of employment. This
Agreement was applied in full in the worker's case and he was
restored to his former duties (details supplied).
2. The circumstances within the worker's branch have altered
completely since the strike. It is now part of a new region
with a changed management and business structure. It would
not be possible for the position to revert to the way it was
in April 1992, as the circumstances as they were then no
longer exist. The return to work issues are no longer
relevant. These issues have already been dealt with through
the agreed grievance procedure and the Bank requests the Court
to find that it was not in breach of the return to work
arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considered the submissions of the parties in the
context of the clarification of LCR13601 given to the General
Secretary of the I.C.T.U. on 15th April, 1992, the IBOA circular
of 20th April and the I.B.S.R.C. letter to I.B.O.A. dated 29th
April.
The parties agreed at the hearing that, on conclusion of the 1992
dispute, the claimant had in fact returned to the duties for which
he was responsible immediately prior to the commencement of
industrial action. Accordingly the specific arrangements
mentioned in both the I.B.O.A. circular and I.B.S.R.C. letter
regarding the return to work were met.
However, shortly after the resumption of normal working, the
claimant's duties were changed. He was relieved of his
responsibilities for foreign exchange control and was assigned to
a cash control project. Later still, following on an
organisational restructuring and a work restructuring his
reporting relationship was revised and the level to which he
reported was reduced. The pertinent questions for the Court are:-
- did these changes disadvantage the claimant
- if so, did they arise from his involvement in the
industrial dispute.
Having considered the evidence presented, the Court considers that
there was a diminution of the claimant's responsibilities as a
result of his being relieved of the foreign exchange duties.
Generally speaking a reduction in responsibility coupled with a
lower-level reporting relationship in an organisation such as the
Bank can only be regarded as disadvantageous to the individual
concerned.
Because of the fact that the withdrawal of the foreign exchange
duties occurred so soon after the dispute it is understandable
that the claimant would feel there was a connection with his
involvement in that dispute.
The Court, however, is not convinced by the claimant's view in
that regard. The Court also notes that the revised reporting
relationship had an identical impact on other managers not
involved in the strike.
While the Court does not find grounds for recommending concession
of the Union claim it nevertheless considers that relationships
might be improved to the advantage of both parties if the Bank
were to give consideration to the claimants repeated assertions
that he was anxious to undertake additional duties. This avenue
could provide the best means of a mutually acceptable outcome to
the present impasse.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_____________________
22nd July, 1993. Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.