Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93547 Case Number: AD9396 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ALLIED IRISH BANKS - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST353/93.
Recommendation:
The Court fully concurs with the findings of the Rights
Commissioner in this case and confirms his Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93547 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ALLIED IRISH BANKS
AND
A WORKER
(Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST353/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the worker arising from the
alleged breach of an agreement in relation to the allocation of
overtime during construction work at the bank's Mary Street
branch. The bank claims that it shared the available overtime
among all staff in an equitable manner. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 31st of October, 1991, at which agreement was not
reached. The dispute was then referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation.
On the 18th August, 1993, the Rights Commissioner found that a
breech of the agreement (2/11/1978) had taken place but that the
worker's claim for six weeks' paid holidays over two years was not
reasonable. He recommended that, as the bank was not entirely
blameless in the matter, the worker should be given two weeks'
paid leave at the bank's convenience. The Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st of September, 1993,
in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 5th of November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has suffered considerable loss of income
arising from the bank's decision to disregard the agreement
concerning structural alterations. The agreement states
that:
"Where work of a general nature (not related to banking
as such) is going on at weekends in a branch, and when
for that reason it is necessary to have somebody in
attendance, it is recognised in such circumstances that
the attendance of a bank porter is most appropriate.
If however, other officials are required to be present
for reasons related to alarm systems, or because they
are official keyholders, or because they are performing
other duties appropriate to their grade, the additional
presence of a porter may not be required.
Where, however, work which is appropriate to porters is
also required to be done, a porter will be requested to
attend, but this work will not necessarily arise on
every occasion or require attendance for a full day".
2. The custom and practice has been that porters have been
involved in overtime working during structural alterations in
all four major banks.
3. The Union is not opposed to other staff working overtime
provided they confine themselves to their normal duties.
4. The worker refused to work on the bank-holiday weekend
of October, 1990 because he was upset by the fact that
overtime was assigned by the drawing of lots. Accordingly,
he was deprived of his entitlements.
5. The manager at the branch ought to have been aware of
the details of the agreement covering the allocation of
overtime.
6. The claim for 6 weeks' paid holidays over two years is
reasonable. The worker was deprived of 230 hours of premium
rate overtime, which equates to 400 hours at the flat rate.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff are not entitled to overtime attendance by right,
regardless of grade.
2. The agreement of May, 1973, which is still in operation,
supports the bank's right to assign overtime to anyone in a
branch, on the basis of securing "a more economic use of
staff and a more effective performance of work".
3. The weekend attendance relating to structural
alterations in Mary Street was dealt with in a pragmatic and
reasonable way by the branch manager. There was work
associated with portering but there were also general bank
official duties and work related to alarms/keyholding taking
place at the weekends. The worker, therefore, did not have
exclusive right to weekend attendance.
4. The worker's refusal to work on a certain weekend,
relating to the structural alterations at the branch, was
unreasonable, particularly, as his argument has always been
that he was entitled to this work.
DECISION:
The Court fully concurs with the findings of the Rights
Commissioner in this case and confirms his Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
26th November, 1993 ____________________________________
M.K./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.