Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94668 Case Number: LCR14683 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning a lump sum payment for six managers arising out of LCR13601.
Recommendation:
1. The Court takes the view that the payment of the #1,000 to
all who withdrew their labour, in the Banks dispute of 1992,
formed part of the settlement terms which were subject to a
ballot vote prior to acceptance.
2. It would therefore be reasonable that the six claimants, who
also took part in the dispute, despite the difference in
their pay structure, have an entitlement to that payment.
3. The Court could not accept that the payment of the #1,000
already made can represent any other logical conclusion to
the understanding of the employees and it is the Court's view
that the payment made by the Bank to the claimants is their
entitlement under the settlement of that dispute.
4. Having regard to the claim before the Court, it is a fact
that the claimants' pay structure and consequently pay
increases do not have the involvement of the Association.
That being so, the methodology by which increases are
achieved is an agreed structure as between the Bank and the
participating employees.
5. However, in the aftermath of the strike both management and
the Association recognised the sensitivity of a situation
where "assessments" would influence pay increases and the
danger of a negative review reflecting some breach of the no
victimisation clause in the return to work terms. To that
extent the Bank's procedure of evaluations was varied and
apart from the position of the six claimants was seen to be
fair.
6. The Court recommends that the Bank offers and the claimants
accept without prejudice a #1,000 lump sum in final
settlement of this dispute. This sum is additional to at 3
above.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94668 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14683
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a lump sum payment for six managers
arising out of LCR13601.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. LCR13601 was issued on 23rd March, 1992, following a
claim by the Association for salary increases for its
members. On 15th April, 1992, arising out of the terms
of LCR13601, the Labour Court wrote to the General
Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and
recommended in an addendum to LCR13601 that the #750
proposed in LCR13601 be increased to #1,000.
2. The Court's addendum of 15th April, 1992, also stated
"that any residual issues arising from the
recommendation or from the clarification given above
should be referred to the Court for final resolution."
On 11th July, 1994, the Association referred the issue
of the payment of lump sums to its manager members.
3. In 1988, the Bank introduced a new performance related
payment structure for its managers. Progression through
the salary range was to be related to performance and no
further collective or nationally agreed pay awards were
to apply. The Bank's decision on pay increases was
final and the pay determination was to be on an
individual, personal and private basis.
4. On 9th July, 1992, the Association wrote to the Bank
concerning alleged payments of up to #4,000 which were
paid only to managers who worked during the dispute.
The Bank responded that under the terms of the payment
structure "lump sum payments were made to individual
managers and these payments were not confined to
managers who worked during the dispute."
5. On 16th June, 1993, the Association advised the Bank
that it "is pursuing its claim on behalf of its Branch
Manager Members who received no lump sum payment in the
year 1992." The Association later informed the Bank of
the six members to which the claim applied.
6. Following local and Labour Relations Commission
discussion, on 10th May, 1994, the Bank advised the
Association that it was prepared to pay to the six
mangers the #1,000 payment specified in the addendum to
LCR13601. The payment was subsequently made by the
Bank. The payment was rejected by the Association as
being insufficient given the time lapse since the
recommendation, the personal trauma for the managers and
the fact that the Bank did not address the main
discrimination which was applied to the managers in
comparison to their colleagues.
7. The Association referred the dispute to the Labour Court
on 11th July, 1994 under the terms of LCR13601. The
Labour Court heard the dispute on 30th January, 1995
(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association is aware that nearly all managers who
worked during the 1992 dispute received lump sums
varying from #3,000 to #6,000 in addition to their
performance review increases. These payments are in
contrast to the six claimants who did not receive any
payments and were also refused the #1,000 lump sum paid
to all strikers. The Court's Recommendation had a
non-victimisation clause which was accepted by both
parties. The six claimants have quite clearly been
victimised.
2. The claimants' treatment is also in contrast to the
treatment of similarly paid managers in the other
Associated Banks. It is unacceptable to the Association
that the managers should be discriminated against in
this manner.
3. The Bank has argued that the Managers' payments in 1992
were based on the totality of their performances. If
this was the case, it could not have resulted in the
coincidence of all the claimants not receiving the lump
sum payments but all other managers receiving such
payments. It is unreasonable of the Bank to expect the
claimants to settle for the #1,000 to which the Bank
argued they had no entitlement.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All managers who accepted the performance related pay
system have their salaries reviewed in July each year on
a personal, individual and private basis. This is based
on an appraisal of the totality of the individual's
performance during the entire year under review and is
not the subject of negotiation with any third party.
This occurred in 1992 and the outcome was communicated
to the six managers. The Association has no role in
relation to any aspect of remuneration arising from
them.
2. The Bank paid lump sums to individuals as part of
managerial performance ranging from bonuses of between
#500 and #4,000. It is important to note that a number
of managers who worked during the dispute did not
receive any lump sum based on their performance. In
addition a number of managers who supported the
Association's industrial action received cash bonuses
based on an appraisal of their performance over the
year.
3. Notwithstanding its position on the matter, the Bank
made payments of #1,000 to each of the six claimants.
The payments were made in good faith in a bid to
finalise the matter. The Bank has acted in a non
discriminatory fashion.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Court takes the view that the payment of the #1,000 to
all who withdrew their labour, in the Banks dispute of 1992,
formed part of the settlement terms which were subject to a
ballot vote prior to acceptance.
2. It would therefore be reasonable that the six claimants, who
also took part in the dispute, despite the difference in
their pay structure, have an entitlement to that payment.
3. The Court could not accept that the payment of the #1,000
already made can represent any other logical conclusion to
the understanding of the employees and it is the Court's view
that the payment made by the Bank to the claimants is their
entitlement under the settlement of that dispute.
4. Having regard to the claim before the Court, it is a fact
that the claimants' pay structure and consequently pay
increases do not have the involvement of the Association.
That being so, the methodology by which increases are
achieved is an agreed structure as between the Bank and the
participating employees.
5. However, in the aftermath of the strike both management and
the Association recognised the sensitivity of a situation
where "assessments" would influence pay increases and the
danger of a negative review reflecting some breach of the no
victimisation clause in the return to work terms. To that
extent the Bank's procedure of evaluations was varied and
apart from the position of the six claimants was seen to be
fair.
6. The Court recommends that the Bank offers and the claimants
accept without prejudice a #1,000 lump sum in final
settlement of this dispute. This sum is additional to at 3
above.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.