Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92465 Case Number: LCR14064 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
A claim on behalf of Bank Assistants for parity of pay and career prospects.
Recommendation:
The Court was supplied with very extensive submissions from the
parties involved in this dispute. The submissions included
details of the background (to the claim) and history of previous
negotiations on the establishment of the Bank Assistant Grade in
1988 culminating in LCR No. 12078 which was accepted by both
parties. The claim now before the Court is in effect requesting
the Court to find that LCR12078 should be rescinded.
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties, the background to LCR No. 12078 and also the
Bank's submission made at the Court hearing as to the relevance of
P.E.S.P. to the claim.
The Court recognises the claimants concern as to their level of
pay and career opportunities. This latter point is particularly
relevant in light of the Bank's lack of recruitment to Bank
Official Grade. The Court however is not satisfied that it would
be justified in recommending concession of the claim as made.
Despite the fact that the employees have already rejected a
proposal to address the claim by way of a Performance Related Pay
increases the Court is strongly of the view that the resolution of
this dispute lies in that type of settlement.
The Court considers that there is merit in the proposals outlined
in letter of 14th October 1992 (Appendix 8A and B - Union
submission) and negotiations should begin on these proposals. In
the context of these negotiations the Court would expect the
parties to conclude negotiations at direct level but in the event
of an impasse, to use the Labour Relations Commission and
ultimately the Labour Court to reach a resolution.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above proposals and
recommendations as the best available method of resolving this
dispute.
Because of the long interval between the serving of the original
claim and reference to the Labour Court it would be incumbent on
both parties to make themselves available, as a priority, for
negotiating the proposal to finality.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92465 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14064
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim on behalf of Bank Assistants for parity of pay and
career prospects.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1988, the Bank Assistant grade was introduced in line
with the Bank's "Plan for Improved Competitiveness (PIC)".
On 14th February, 1991 the Association submitted a claim for
parity of pay and career prospects with those of Bank
Officials. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
2. Four conciliation conferences were held on the 28th
November, 1991, 4th February, 1992, 23rd September, 1992 and
the 12th October, 1992. At the last conference the Bank put
forward specific proposals in relation to performance related
pay for Bank Assistants (Appendix 1), but the Union felt that
this was an unacceptable response to a claim for improved
scales and career aspirations. The proposals were put to a
ballot of all Bank Assistants and were rejected.
3. The matter was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 6th August, 1992 and
the Court investigated the issue on the 22nd April, 1993.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Bank Assistants cannot afford to live on their current
basic salaries.
2. The Bank Assistant scale is significantly inferior to
the junior grades in the other Associated Banks in regard to
pay and career prospects.
3. The Bank Assistant scale compares unfavourably with
internal and external comparators.
4. Bank Assistants are carrying out a broader and more
responsible range of duties than those on which their
salaries are based.
5. The introduction of the Bank Assistant grade has given
rise to cost savings which recouped the outlay of PIC nearly
two years ago.
6. At the time of their recruitment, Bank Assistants were
assured of positive career development.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employment of Bank Assistants is an integral and
fundamental element of PIC.
2. The business environment and commercial realities which
created the need for PIC have intensified.
3. The introduction of PIC took place against a background
of much debate and discussion.
4. The introduction of PIC was ultimately based on Labour
Court Recommendation 12078.
5. The claim is in contravention of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
6. The pay and conditions of Bank Assistants were arrived
at following detailed research.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was supplied with very extensive submissions from the
parties involved in this dispute. The submissions included
details of the background (to the claim) and history of previous
negotiations on the establishment of the Bank Assistant Grade in
1988 culminating in LCR No. 12078 which was accepted by both
parties. The claim now before the Court is in effect requesting
the Court to find that LCR12078 should be rescinded.
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties, the background to LCR No. 12078 and also the
Bank's submission made at the Court hearing as to the relevance of
P.E.S.P. to the claim.
The Court recognises the claimants concern as to their level of
pay and career opportunities. This latter point is particularly
relevant in light of the Bank's lack of recruitment to Bank
Official Grade. The Court however is not satisfied that it would
be justified in recommending concession of the claim as made.
Despite the fact that the employees have already rejected a
proposal to address the claim by way of a Performance Related Pay
increases the Court is strongly of the view that the resolution of
this dispute lies in that type of settlement.
The Court considers that there is merit in the proposals outlined
in letter of 14th October 1992 (Appendix 8A and B - Union
submission) and negotiations should begin on these proposals. In
the context of these negotiations the Court would expect the
parties to conclude negotiations at direct level but in the event
of an impasse, to use the Labour Relations Commission and
ultimately the Labour Court to reach a resolution.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above proposals and
recommendations as the best available method of resolving this
dispute.
Because of the long interval between the serving of the original
claim and reference to the Labour Court it would be incumbent on
both parties to make themselves available, as a priority, for
negotiating the proposal to finality.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th April, 1993 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.