FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for service pay to supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three workers concerned are employed by the Bank as supervisors at its currency centre in Sandyford. In September, 1996 it came to the Union's attention that the supervisors were not in receipt of service pay in accordance with the Printing Industry Registered Employment Agreement. The Union submitted a claim for service pay on behalf of the supervisors. Management rejected the claim. The Bank's position is that it has never been the practice to apply service pay to any supervisory staff at its Print, Mint and Maintenance areas.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 9th of July, 1997. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of July, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Supervisors throughout the industry are paid service pay. The Union's claim is made solely on the basis that the three supervisors concerned are covered by the Printing Industry Registered Employment Agreement and therefore should be in receipt of service pay.
2. Concession of the claim would not create a precedent as the basis for the claim is not the workers' supervisory status but the fact that they are covered by the REA. This is illustrated by the fact that the most recent agreement between the Irish Printing Federation and the Unions providing for average overtime for holiday pay purposes is applied to the supervisors concerned.
3. Operators employed by the Banks are paid service pay and it was always the Union's understanding that all Bank employees who are members of its printing trades branch were in receipt of service pay.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Service pay has never applied to supervisory staff in the Bank's Print, Mint and Maintenance areas and this has been the practice for over 20 years. The issue was not raised in 1989 when service pay was amended for the operators. The workers concerned would have been aware of this policy on their promotion in the early 1980's.
2. Taking maximum service pay into account for general workers, the supervisors concerned enjoy pay differentials of between 8% and 12%. Any increase on these differentials could influence forthcoming pay developments in the Bank's Print and Maintenance areas. In addition if service pay was applied to these claimants it would have to apply to other supervisors.
3. The Central Bank's pay awards must be justified by reference to overall productivity and cost management. As a cost increasing claim this issue is excluded under the terms of Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
4. The Bank has fully met Clause 3 under the terms of the PESP and special pay increases have and will arise from the capital re-equipment programme underway in the currency centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all the information supplied written and oral the Court is satisfied that service pay has never been paid to this Group and was not raised as an issue when the service pay was re-negotiated for operatives.
It is equally clear that individuals on promotion from the shop floor had their service pay discontinued.
Taking into account the above the Court believes that this arrangement was well known to all concerned and therefore does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
21st November, 1997______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.