Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9497 Case Number: LCR14420 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: A.I.B. BANK - and - A WORKER;IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Request by the Association to allow a worker to appeal under the Transferability Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the circumstances of the case,
recommends that the transfer be accepted and that the member
accepts that all appeal procedures have been exhausted.
It appears to the Court that there is both ambiguity and
inconsistency in the comprehension and operation of this scheme.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should seek to
agree their interpretations of the agreement and the manner in
which it is to operate.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9497 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14420
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
A.I.B. BANK
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION)
SUBJECT:
1. Request by the Association to allow a worker to appeal under
the Transferability Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has worked with the Bank since 1966.
She was transferred to Portlaoise in 1975. In September 1991
the Bank notified the worker of its intention to transfer her
to their Rathdowney Branch, 24 miles away.
The worker sought to appeal the transfer under the Bank's
Transferability Agreement but this option was refused by the
Bank. In October 1991, the Association, acting on behalf of
the worker, appealed the transfer through the internal
Grievance Procedure. The outcome of the appeal resulted in
the worker being transferred to Rathdowney in May, 1992.
It was agreed that the dispute would be appealed to an
independent third party arbitrator. The following
recommendation was issued by the independent arbitrator:-
".... that the transfer be accepted but on condition
that the worker may not again be transferred
compulsorily outside of the Portlaoise to Rathdowney
radius".
On 25th February, 1993 the Association referred the dispute
to the Labour Relations Commission but no progress was
achieved. On 2nd February, 1994 the Association referred the
dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 11th March, 1994.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned did not wish to transfer from
Portlaoise to Rathdowney. It is a distance of 24 miles each
way, more than half of which is over bad roads. The worker
had bought a new house outside Portlaoise eight weeks before
being informed of the transfer. She did not want to move
house again.
2. Part of the Transferability Agreement states as follows:
(a) "The Bank will, when transferring an official from
one location to another, particularly where the
official is married and the transfer necessitates a
change of residence, do so in consideration of the
principles of natural justice and of the family
needs of the official."
(b) In relation to senior officials, i.e. officials
with 25 years' service or of Officer Rank or above
where they "are being considered for a transfer
involving a change of residence, the Bank will at
all times endeavour to take the wishes of the
individual official fully into account. In all
such cases, the emphasis will be as far as possible
on filling vacancies at this level on a voluntary
basis".
The worker, who is married, has twenty five years service and
qualifies as a senior official. The transfer was not on a
voluntary basis and has caused considerable difficulties for
the worker concerned. The Bank did not take the worker's
wishes into consideration.
3. A predecessor of the worker, who had transferred from
Portlaoise to Rathdowney and back to Portlaoise, changed
residence on both occasions. The transfer expenses were met
by the Bank. Other workers in the Bank who transferred
similar distances were also required to change residence.
The worker's transfer to Rathdowney could be classified as a
transfer that "necessitates a change of residence" and
accordingly she should be able to appeal under the
Transferability Agreement.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The transfer of the worker concerned does not require a
change of residence. The recommendation which issued from
the Grievance Procedure stated that:
"While your move to Rathdowney will involve travel, it
is my opinion that it is within accessible commuting
distance and does not necessitate a house move.
Accordingly, it should not impinge on your personal and
domestic circumstances."
2. The Bank is aware that the worker has never expressed a
wish to move to Rathdowney. An appeal under the
Transferability Agreement is only allowed "where a transfer
necessitates a change of residence....."
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the circumstances of the case,
recommends that the transfer be accepted and that the member
accepts that all appeal procedures have been exhausted.
It appears to the Court that there is both ambiguity and
inconsistency in the comprehension and operation of this scheme.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should seek to
agree their interpretations of the agreement and the manner in
which it is to operate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.