Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9449 Case Number: LCR14356 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Claim by the Association for improvements in pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
This dispute was referred to the Court in context of LCR No.
14064. In that recommendation the Court stated inter-alia that
the resolution of the dispute lay in a Performance Related Pay
settlement. The Court when issuing that recommendation had also
regard to the Bank's contention that the claim was in
contravention of the P.E.S.P..
As the parties have failed to negotiate an agreement the matter is
now before the Court for recommendation.
The Court is concerned at the employee distrust of the Management
which was evident in the I.B.O.A. submissions (oral and written)
and the general difficult industrial relations climate. Whilst
understanding that recent past events may have given rise to this
the Court nevertheless feels it important to express its concern
and urge both parties to endeavour to establish better working
relationships. In the present climate of mistrust the Court
understands, whilst not necessarily agreeing, why the employees
involved are suspicious of the introduction of P.R.P.. The Court
however re-iterates its view as expressed in LCR No. 14064.
An essential element of any P.R.P. scheme if it is to succeed is
that it is fair and seen to be fair. In particular, appraisals
must be fair and transparent with a mechanism for dealing with
complaints of unfairness in place. This is particularly
important in the introductory period when both sides may have real
or imaginary fears. The Court notes on this point the explicit
commitment of the Bank to training of the employees involved in
P.R.P. and most importantly training for the appraisors.
Having considered the outcome of negotiations between the parties
arising from LCR 14064 and which concluded with proposals and
counter proposals the Court recommends as follows:-
The Bank proposals as set out in their submission (App 2) should
be amended as follows
A. New Pay Range - One pay range with min of #9,100 and max
#15,500, Cash Bonus at #15,500 only.
B. Opt Out Clause - As proposed, with addition of
clarification given at the hearing that no
loss of income will occur if this option
is availed of.
C. Addition to Introduction of a specific appeals
Banks Offer - mechanism to deal with complaints under
the Scheme. The Court considers the
parties should agree such mechanism.
D. - In view of the proposed Opt-Out Clause as
at (B) above the Court considers the
parties should have an overall review and
assessment of the scheme and its impact on
the employees at the end of 2 years. The
Court recommends this in view of the
Bank's stated expectation that it
envisaged that the majority of workers
would achieve high ratings and benefit
accordingly.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above proposals as a
fair and reasonable way of meeting the parties aspirations.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9449 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14356
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BANK OF IRELAND
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Association for improvements in pay and
conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Bank Assistant grade was introduced in 1988. In 1991 the
I.B.O.A. submitted a claim on behalf of Bank Assistants for parity
of pay and career prospects with those of Bank Officials. In
October 1992 following protracted negotiations the Bank put
forward specific proposals in relation to a Performance Related
Pay Option (P.P.O.). This dealt with the pay and conditions of
Bank Assistants. It combined both an appraisal and remuneration
system and involved the replacement of the current 11 point
incremental scale with a salary range system. The P.P.O. also
dealt with potential cash bonuses, and criteria for salary
progression. The P.P.O. was rejected by the Association. The
dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in April 1993.
On the 30th April, 1993 the Court in LCR 14064, recommended as
follows:
" 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 LCR 12078
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 increase the Court is strongly of the view that the
resolution of this dispute lies in that type of settlement.
The Court considered 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."
The parties subsequently entered negotiations but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 13th July,
11th August and 20th December, 1993. Following the conciliation
conferences the Bank's final amended Performance Pay Option
proposals were as follows:-
Salary Ranges
Range 1. #9,100 - #14,000
Range 2. #14,000 - #15,000
Potential Cash bonuses at range max.
Range 1. #700
Range 2. #775
Salary increase
#1,000 on August 1993 salary.
Introductory payment
#500 on joining.
Criteria for progression from Range 1 - 2
Minimum achievement of appraisal rating 3 in each of previous
3 years.
Opt Back facility
Right to opt back after 2 years.
The P.P.O. was rejected by the Association. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 20th January, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 21st February, 1994.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank's proposals were put to the Association as a
"fait accompli". Management were not prepared to negotiate
on either the amounts or the criteria for movement up the
ranges. The pay parameters of the Association are identical
to those proposed by the Bank (#9,100 to #15,500). However,
the Association requires a pay structure which marries both
ranges, giving a salary scale of #9,100 to #15,500, by annual
increments of #640.
2. The Performance Pay Option must be eliminated as it is
unworkable and does not meet the aspirations of Bank
Assistants. It is extraordinary that Bank Assistants would
go onto performance related pay while all other more senior
grades have incremental scales.
3. The claim was first submitted in 1991. The initial Bank
salary proposal was made in October 1992. The operative date
should be 1st January, 1993. A minimum increase of #1,000
should apply from 1st January, 1994 and the sign-on fee
should be increased from #500 to #1,000.
4. These proposals are a significant compromise on behalf
of the Association. Its proposed salary scale is within the
same parameters as those proposed by the Bank and encompasses
arrangements to cover retrospection of the claim, first
lodged in January, 1991.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank has progressed the "Pay for Performance Option"
as the basis for resolving the dispute in line with LCR
14064. The proposal of October 1992 has been significantly
improved.
2. The new remuneration package for Bank Assistants
compares favourably with those on offer both within the
Associated Banks and in the broader financial services
industry.
3. The proposals address the issues raised by the
Association. The pay element has been enhanced substantially
in relation to the original offer. There is now an
opportunity of accelerated progress through the range, based
on performance. The percentage increases applicable to the
respective appraisal ratings are extremely high. There is
potential to earn cash bonuses on an annual basis, at the
maximum range, and the opportunity to progress to a higher
range based on stated criteria. The appraisal system to
support the remuneration element of the scheme has been
developed together with a structured process for agreed goal
setting, followed by appraisal and assessment. The "Opt Back
Facility" provides all workers joining the scheme with an
option to revert to the incremental system after 2 years.
4. A significant number of Bank Assistants have already
joined the scheme and are currently enjoying its initial
benefits.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court in context of LCR No.
14064. In that recommendation the Court stated inter-alia that
the resolution of the dispute lay in a Performance Related Pay
settlement. The Court when issuing that recommendation had also
regard to the Bank's contention that the claim was in
contravention of the P.E.S.P..
As the parties have failed to negotiate an agreement the matter is
now before the Court for recommendation.
The Court is concerned at the employee distrust of the Management
which was evident in the I.B.O.A. submissions (oral and written)
and the general difficult industrial relations climate. Whilst
understanding that recent past events may have given rise to this
the Court nevertheless feels it important to express its concern
and urge both parties to endeavour to establish better working
relationships. In the present climate of mistrust the Court
understands, whilst not necessarily agreeing, why the employees
involved are suspicious of the introduction of P.R.P.. The Court
however re-iterates its view as expressed in LCR No. 14064.
An essential element of any P.R.P. scheme if it is to succeed is
that it is fair and seen to be fair. In particular, appraisals
must be fair and transparent with a mechanism for dealing with
complaints of unfairness in place. This is particularly
important in the introductory period when both sides may have real
or imaginary fears. The Court notes on this point the explicit
commitment of the Bank to training of the employees involved in
P.R.P. and most importantly training for the appraisors.
Having considered the outcome of negotiations between the parties
arising from LCR 14064 and which concluded with proposals and
counter proposals the Court recommends as follows:-
The Bank proposals as set out in their submission (App 2) should
be amended as follows
A. New Pay Range - One pay range with min of #9,100 and max
#15,500, Cash Bonus at #15,500 only.
B. Opt Out Clause - As proposed, with addition of
clarification given at the hearing that no
loss of income will occur if this option
is availed of.
C. Addition to Introduction of a specific appeals
Banks Offer - mechanism to deal with complaints under
the Scheme. The Court considers the
parties should agree such mechanism.
D. - In view of the proposed Opt-Out Clause as
at (B) above the Court considers the
parties should have an overall review and
assessment of the scheme and its impact on
the employees at the end of 2 years. The
Court recommends this in view of the
Bank's stated expectation that it
envisaged that the majority of workers
would achieve high ratings and benefit
accordingly.
The Court urges both parties to accept the above proposals as a
fair and reasonable way of meeting the parties aspirations.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th March, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.