Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9673 Case Number: LCR15121 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Terms and conditions of employment of one employee.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
the Bank offer and the Union accept an ex-gratia sum of £1,000 in
full settlement of this claim and in recognition of the fact that
the claimant has suffered a loss, as a result of the implementation
of normal procedures.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9673 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15121
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Terms and conditions of employment of one employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute between the parties relates to the
interpretation of the terms and conditions of employment
for computer operator staff working on shift. The shift
allowance for computer operator staff is 16.67% of basic
salary. The dispute concerns the promotion of a computer
operator (EO) to senior executive officer (SEO). The
Union claims that the shift allowance should be
incorporated into the basic salary of the worker on
promotion. The worker would then not have to "mark
time".
2. The Union points out that there is a written agreement
between the parties which states as follows:-
"Should the computer operator be promoted in
general competitions, the allowance will be
included in the calculation of salary increase
on promotion, in line with normal procedures".
3. The Bank rejects the Union's interpretation of the clause
"in line with normal procedures". The Bank states that
this phrase refers to the Civil Service practice in
respect of promotions where an individual has enjoyed an
allowance in the course of his duties and where upon
promotion marks time on their new scale until their
actual pay is in line with their notional pay.
4. At a meeting at local level the Bank made an offer of
£800 on a "once off" basis and as a goodwill gesture to
resolve the dispute. The offer was rejected by the
Union.
5. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on the 14th November, 1995 but no
agreement was possible. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 9th February, 1996 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 14th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank is attempting to introduce a condition of
employment by stealth.
2. The shift allowance should be included in the calculation
of the salary increase on promotion.
3. The Union was unaware when the shift agreement was
concluded of any connection pertaining to the Civil
Service.
4. The worker has suffered a financial loss as a result of
promotion.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is the first occasion in which an employee with a
shift allowance has been promoted.
2. The Department of Finance has indicated that the Bank's
interpretation of Civil Service Circular 34/77 in
relation to "Starting Pay on Promotion or Establishment"
is correct.
3. The Bank has applied the same criteria to all promotions
since it adopted Civil Service procedures (Circular
34/77) in 1978.
4. The worker continues to enjoy a higher salary than that
paid to colleagues who were promoted at the same time.
5. The shift allowance applies to the position and not to
the individual.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
the Bank offer and the Union accept an ex-gratia sum of £1,000 in
full settlement of this claim and in recognition of the fact that
the claimant has suffered a loss, as a result of the implementation
of normal procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th March, 1996 --------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.