Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9455 Case Number: LCR14377 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the restoration of differentials between the Vault Officer and Senior Executive Officer grades.
Recommendation:
The Court, given all of the circumstances of this case, does not
find grounds for concession of the Union's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9455 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14377
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CENTRAL BANK
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the restoration of differentials between
the Vault Officer and Senior Executive Officer grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of 7 Vault Officers (V.O.) who
work at the Bank's currency centre. The comparator grade for
the purposes of this claim is the Senior Executive Officers
(S.E.O.). There are 64 S.E.O.'s working in all areas of the
Bank's operations.
2. The Union's claim is that the Vault Officers have had
their pay differential with the S.E.O. grade eroded. The
Vault Officer rate was always 2 increments above the maximum
of the S.E.O. scale. In 1988, in a separate settlement, an
increase of 9% plus one extra increment at the top of the
scale was conceded to the S.E.O. grade.
3. In December 1990, the Union made a claim on behalf of
the Vault Officers for the re-establishment of the
relationship between the Vault Officer and S.E.O. grades.
The Bank rejected the claim as it saw the 1988 agreement as
creating a more appropriate relationship between the grades.
4. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 24th
August, 1992. No progress was possible and the conference
was adjourned to allow the parties to consider their
position. After some considerable time, the parties
requested for the claim to be referred to the Labour Court.
The claim was referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 27th January, 1994. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 24th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up to 1988 there was an established relationship between
the Vault Officer and S.E.O. grades. In 1988, an agreement
was hastily concluded which provided increases for the grades
above and below the Vault Officers' grade but which
unfortunately overlooked the Vault Officers.
2. Up until 1988, all increases applied to the S.E.O. grade
were automatically applied in full to the Vault Officer
scales. During negotiations on the 1988 agreement, the Bank
did not indicate its intention to exclude Vault Officers from
the additional increment awarded to the S.E.O. grade. The
Bank's position did not come to light until the negotiations
had concluded.
3. It is the Union's contention that the Vault Officers
have a more responsible job than the S.E.O. This was
reflected in the salary differentials. The Vault Officer
grade was seen as a promotional grade and its attractiveness
has now been eroded. Numbers in the grade have been reduced
significantly since 1988 and responsibilities have increased.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Bank's position that there was no fixed
relationship at any time between the S.E.O. and Vault Officer
grade. Up to 1988, the size of the differential between the
grades was unjustifiable
2. The additional increment for the S.E.O. grade was part
of a pay package which was negotiated and agreed between the
Bank and the Union in May, 1988. The Bank was surprised in
1990 when the Union began its attempt to unravel part of the
Agreement.
3. The Bank regards the Union's position as unrealistic.
The increases applied to the S.E.O. grade as part of the 1988
Agreement was of benefit to all serving and future members of
the grade. Concession of the Union's claim would lead to
repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given all of the circumstances of this case, does not
find grounds for concession of the Union's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
24th March, 1994. ______________________
J.F./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.