Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95534 Case Number: LCR14962 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AIB FINANCE AND LEASING - and - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning transfer of staff to Dublin.
Recommendation:
There appears to be no precedent for movement between AIB Finance
and AIB Banking in the terms requested by the Union apart from
situations where closure was envisaged.
Indeed it would seem that movements of personnel between the
companies are on a secondment basis, thereby implying that staff
perceive a "difference" between the two companies.
The Court having considered the information before it accepts that
the requirements to transfer is inherent in this particular
segment of the business, even though some of the claimants have
been in the same area for a considerable time.
Indeed some of the claimants have been transferred before and a
number had applied for Finance Sales Representative jobs which may
have necessitated relocating in most cases.
While sympathising with the group given the length of time some
are in the same area the Court does not consider that there are
sufficient grounds to recommend a change in a practice which has
been operated and accepted for a considerable period.
For the reasons outlined the Court recommends that the employees
accept the relocation but that the Company handle each issue
sensitively, on an individual basis, particularly in relation to
the timing of transfers. Consideration should also be given to
this group when advertising posts in areas from which they have
transferred.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95534 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14962
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AIB FINANCE AND LEASING
AND
IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning transfer of staff to Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 250 staff of whom 212 are
based in Sandyford, Co. Dublin. For a number of years the
Company has been centralising its operations in Sandyford.
Staff have relocated from all the Dublin offices. The
present dispute relates to the Company's proposal to transfer
10 staff from Cork, Waterford, Galway, Sligo to the Sandyford
location. The Company has offered relocation and rehousing
packages. If workers do not wish to transfer the Company is
offering severance packages. The Union has rejected the
Company's proposals on the grounds that the workers concerned
do not want to relocate in Dublin. However, they wish to
remain in the employment of the Company and the Association
contends that they could be integrated into their local
branches. Management has rejected this proposal stating that
the only options available are relocation or severance. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and
conciliation conferences were held on the 16th May and 14th
September, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th September, 1995.
A Court hearing was held on the 5th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable of the Company to expect workers with
lengthy service, who are home owners, and married with
families to transfer distances ranging from 110 to 160
miles. It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the
management of similar situations previously in other
units of the Group and the practice in the Financial
Services Industry in general.
2. In a previous dispute (LCR14510 refers) relating to a
claim for relocation payment on behalf of the
Association members relocating to Sandyford, the Company
did not identify, as it now seems to suggest, that the
basis for the relocation to Sandyford was part of an
overall centralisation strategy.
3. The Company has failed to provide any compelling
justification of the benefit in centralising both
arrears and sales support functions. The centralisation
approach is one which has been in vogue in the industry
for a number of years with mixed degrees of success and
has been reversed by many organisations.
4. The workers concerned should be offered the following
alternative options:-
(1) Alternative position in AIB Finance and
Leasing in current location.
(2) A position in AIB Bank Group in current
location.
(3) Voluntary severance or optional early
retirement if appropriate.
These options are reasonable as agreements on
rationalisation in finance companies and subsidiaries of
the Retail Banks both in Ireland and UK including AIB
Group have been reached on the basis of these
parameters.
5. The Association rejects managements contention that the
workers' contracts provide for transferability. Such
clauses are not applicable to the employees who have
worked throughout their careers in the Company at one
location.
6. There has been a gradual merging of Finance Company and
Bank activities. The banks have taken over many of the
profitable products i.e. deposits, customer loans,
leasing. Bank personnel have not been moved with those
products and the workers concerned could immediately
take that type of role were they to be redeployed.
7. Recruitment of staff in recent years has shown a clear
overlap between the Bank and Finance Company with many
appointments in AIB Finance and Leasing filled from
staff in the Retail Bank yet management claims that a
move from AIB Finance and Leasing to the Retail Bank is
contrary to Group Policy.
8. Under "AIB 2000" (which hopes to achieve consistently
superior customer service), 300 new posts will be
available in the Retail Bank. Since January 1995 the
Association has sought that, in the context of the 300
new positions being available, sufficient scope exists
to redeploy as many of the 10 workers who wish to take
up a career in AIB Bank.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company requires that the staff concerned come to
Sandyford, where their jobs will be located and where
their skill and experience is required. Following the
completion of the centralisation process the jobs
concerned will cease to exist in each of the other
locations.
2. AIB Finance and Leasing operates as a separate Company.
It has its own management structure including a Board of
Management. It also has its won Personnel Management
who is responsible for the selection, recruitment and
management of staff. In all respects, the Company
operates as an autonomous organisation. The resolution
of this issue can only lie within the Company, on the
basis of staff transferring with their jobs to Dublin.
Furthermore there is no facility to address this issue
within AIB Bank.
3. AIB Finance and Leasing staff are working within the
finance industry, the nature of which is different to
Banking. There is no history of staff transferring from
Finance and Leasing into a Retail Branch. The skill
mixes of both sets of staff and the functions which they
perform are different.
4. It is not the policy to transfer outside the Company
This is not at all unusual or unique for independent
subsidiary companies. In effect, what the IBOA is
seeking represents an interference with the staffing
arrangements within Retail Branch Banking. This
obviously runs contrary to the principle and practice of
independence within each Company and is not acceptable.
5. As jobs will no longer exist in each of the locations
the transfer of staff arises. Transferability is a
basic term and condition of employment for all staff.
It is a practice that is widespread throughout this
industry. Any departure from this arrangement will
undermine the Company's ability to run its business.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental requirement for the
operation of the business. Transfers have taken place
over the years in response to business needs. (Details
supplied to the Court). The remuneration package of
staff includes the availability of mortgages at
preferential rates. This benefit has its origins in the
fact that staff are transferable. In addition, on
transfer, all transfer expenses are absorbed by the
Company.
6. The Company has stated that it is prepared to make
available a voluntary severance package, which applied
in earlier phases of the centralisation process. It is
available to staff who may choose not to transfer with
their jobs to Sandyford.
7. The completion of the centralisation process is vital in
order to underpin people's jobs and to secure the
success of the business. The case for centralisation
has long been established and has proven to operate
successfully. The Company must resolve this issue
immediately as a failure to do so has serious
implications not only for the ten people concerned but
for the organisation as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
There appears to be no precedent for movement between AIB Finance
and AIB Banking in the terms requested by the Union apart from
situations where closure was envisaged.
Indeed it would seem that movements of personnel between the
companies are on a secondment basis, thereby implying that staff
perceive a "difference" between the two companies.
The Court having considered the information before it accepts that
the requirements to transfer is inherent in this particular
segment of the business, even though some of the claimants have
been in the same area for a considerable time.
Indeed some of the claimants have been transferred before and a
number had applied for Finance Sales Representative jobs which may
have necessitated relocating in most cases.
While sympathising with the group given the length of time some
are in the same area the Court does not consider that there are
sufficient grounds to recommend a change in a practice which has
been operated and accepted for a considerable period.
For the reasons outlined the Court recommends that the employees
accept the relocation but that the Company handle each issue
sensitively, on an individual basis, particularly in relation to
the timing of transfers. Consideration should also be given to
this group when advertising posts in areas from which they have
transferred.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D/D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.