LCR14459

Subject:
(i) Appointment of individuals to permanent positions. (ii) Trust allowance (iii) Rationalisation bonus.

Recommendation:
The Court has considered the detailed submission from the parties
in relation to the three items in dispute and sets out below its
recommendation:


(1) APPOINTMENTS TO SUITABLE PERMANENT POSITIONS OF ELEVEN
INDIVIDUALS.

The Court notes that to date ten of the eleven have been
appointed to permanent positions and that the Bank are aware
of their obligation to accommodate the eleventh. The Court
also notes the Bank's statement at the Court hearing that it
would sympathetically consider any representation by or on
behalf of individuals who considered their permanent
appointments unsuitable. The Court is of the view that such
individual problems should be dealt with at local level. The
Court further accepts that individuals may have genuinely
held concern as to their promotion prospects and recommends
that the Bank give all necessary assurances on this point.


(2) TRUSTEE ALLOWANCE

The Court recommends that the Union accept the Bank proposal
of phasing out of this allowance for the three members in
question.




(3) RATIONALISATION BONUS

The Court is satisfied that the members in question should be
paid a bonus in accordance with the rationalisation scheme.

Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD94111 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14459

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES:
BANK OF IRELAND

AND

IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION (I.B.O.A)

SUBJECT:

1. (i) Appointment of individuals to permanent positions.
(ii) Trust allowance (iii) Rationalisation bonus.


GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns eleven workers employed
by the Bank in the Custodial Services Department. At the time
of the 1992 Banks' dispute the Bank moved its Custodial
Services Department from its headquarters in Lower Baggot
Street, to the Investment Bank of Ireland, (I.B.I) at the
International Financial Services Centre, (IFSC), Custom House
Docks. The eleven workers concerned (up to the level of
manager) were displaced.

There was an agreement at the end of the strike that all
staff would return to their original pre-strike jobs and
locations. The Custodial Services Department was an
exception to this.

In the period April, 1992 to August, 1992 local-level
discussion took place at which the I.B.O.A. sought the
following:

(i) Suitable alternative and acceptable re-deployment for
the eleven workers concerned.

(ii) The retention of the Trust allowances for those
workers who received the payment.

(iii) The payment of a rationalisation bonus to all staff in
Custodial Services.


No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference held
on 22nd December, 1992 was adjourned and did not re-convene.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on 15th February, 1994. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 9th May, 1994, (the ealiest date
suitable to the parties).


APPOINTMENT TO SUITABLE PERMANENT POSITIONS OF ELEVEN WORKERS


The I.B.O.A claims that the Bank's actions in transferring
the Custodial Services Department is in breach of the
Technology and Change Agreement of 1988, and contrary to LCR
No. 13601 which provides that no member of staff should be
disadvantaged as a result of the dispute.

The Bank's position is that it was left with no option when
the I.B.O.A. gave notice of full strike action, but to take
immediate action to protect the business by transferring it.


I.B.O.A'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The Bank's handling of the situation has affected the
morale of the workers. They were displaced from their
jobs and placed in permanent positions without any
consideration to suitability, job satisfaction or career
opportunities.

2. The workers are seeking suitable alternative positions.
The jobs in which they have been placed are not
comparable to those in which they previously worked.

3. The jobs do not provide the workers with any career
opportunities, similar to those which existed in
Custodial Services. No formalised re-training has been
given which would enable the workers further their
career aspirations elsewhere in the Bank. Their careers
have suffered as a consequence.

4. The Bank has taken an inordinate period of time in
placing the workers in alternative permanent positions.
The I.B.O.A. would contrast the position of Custodial
Services to many other rationalisations which have
occurred in which workers were given suitable
alternative positions almost immediately.


BANK'S ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. At the time of the relocation of Custodial Services all
staff were offered secondment to I.B.I. at the I.F.S.C.
with an option to return to the Bank within one year
should they choose to do so. A number of staff chose
not to transfer with the business.

2. In 1992 the Bank had already been considering the
relocation of the business to I.F.S.C.. When the
I.B.O.A. gave notice of full strike action to commence
on 6th April, 1992, it was left with no option but to
take immediate action to protect the business by
transferring it immediately. Failure to deliver on its
contractual obligations would have resulted in immediate
and permanent loss of the business to its competitors.

3. With the exception of one worker the workers concerned
have been appointed to permanent positions. This is
totally consistent with the Bank's position from the
outset. The Bank stated that it could not give
guarantees of placement within a certain time-frame. The
Bank gave assurances that in general staff would retain
their existing terms and conditions of employment.

TRUST ALLOWANCE


A Trust Allowance is an overscale payment made to an
individual worker in recognition of specialist skills
required and special circumstances pertaining to working in
certain units. At present three of the workers concerned are
paid the allowance. The Bank propose to phase out the
allowance over a three year period.

I.B.O.A.'s ARGUMENTS


(1) The three workers concerned are ranked staff. Two of the
workers were not placed in permanent positions until
December, 1993. The careers of the three workers have
suffered significantly as a result of the Bank's
actions. Their current jobs bear no comparision to
their previous positions in terms of rank, status,
responsibilities and job satisfaction. In the
circumstances the allowances should be retained on an
individual basis.

BANK'S ARGUMENTS


Trust allowances only apply while the recipient holds an
assistant trust officer or trust officer post. The I.B.O.A.
had been advised during the course of discussions that on
appointment of the individuals to permanent positions the
allowances would be phased out in line with normal practice
in such situations.

RATIONALISATION BONUS


A practice has existed in the Bank where, upon the
rationalisation of two offices, a rationalisation bonus may
be paid. The I.B.O.A. claims that the re-organisation of
Custodial Services from Bank of Ireland to I.B.I. at the
I.F.S.C. clearly involves rationalisation.

I.B.O.A.'s ARGUMENTS


(1) The re-organisation of Custodial Services to I.B.I.
clearly involves rationalisation and a bonus payment
should be made.

(2) Payment has been made by the Bank in the past when
departments have rationalised.

(3) The effects of the Bank's decision on the workers' jobs
and careers justify some form of financial compensation.

BANK'S ARGUMENTS


(1) The payment of a rationalisation bonus is discretionary
and does not form part of any agreement. The basis of
payment is a recognition of the full co-operation of
staff in the smooth integration of the business of the
two offices.

(2) The changes involved were brought about as a result of a
very real threat to the business of Custodial Services.
The action taken by the Bank was necessary to protect
the business. The consequences would undoubtedly have
been a loss of jobs.



RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the detailed submission from the parties
in relation to the three items in dispute and sets out below its
recommendation:


(1) APPOINTMENTS TO SUITABLE PERMANENT POSITIONS OF ELEVEN
INDIVIDUALS.

The Court notes that to date ten of the eleven have been
appointed to permanent positions and that the Bank are aware
of their obligation to accommodate the eleventh. The Court
also notes the Bank's statement at the Court hearing that it
would sympathetically consider any representation by or on
behalf of individuals who considered their permanent
appointments unsuitable. The Court is of the view that such
individual problems should be dealt with at local level. The
Court further accepts that individuals may have genuinely
held concern as to their promotion prospects and recommends
that the Bank give all necessary assurances on this point.


(2) TRUSTEE ALLOWANCE

The Court recommends that the Union accept the Bank proposal
of phasing out of this allowance for the three members in
question.




(3) RATIONALISATION BONUS

The Court is satisfied that the members in question should be
paid a bonus in accordance with the rationalisation scheme.

~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


30th May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. __________________
Deputy Chairperson

Note

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.