FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Promotion
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a conflict of interpretation between the Unions and management on clause 4.1(d) and clause 4.1(f) of the Company/Union agreement of 1992 on terms and conditions of employment.
In June, 1992, Cork and Limerick Savings Bank and TSB Dublin merged to form TSB Bank and revised terms and conditions of employment were agreed between the Bank and its staff. Prior to 1992, there was automatic promotion to Grade 3 (the equivalent of SBO grade in the Banking Industry). In the Cork and Limerick Savings Bank automatic promotion had ceased.
The matter was referred by the Unions to the Labour Court under clause II(d) of the Bank's collective agreement which states that:-
"in the event of a dispute arising from either the application or interpretation of any agreement, the parties will follow the procedures set out at (a) and (b) above and will abide by the terms of the Labour Court's recommendation. The decision of the Court will be accepted in advance by the parties."
Clause 4.1(d)
Not less than 25% of those appointed to Grade 2 will be promoted to Grade 3 having completed six years service. This is a minimum figure and it is envisaged that as the Bank expands, the opportunities for promotion will increase. The applications for promotions will be advertised annually. Applications for these promotions will be in writing to the Personnel Department and will outline a curriculum vitae of achievements to date with the Bank and should be endorsed by the respective managers. Interviews will then follow and appointments will be made subsequently.
Clause 4.1(f)
All new staff recruited in a permanent capacity after the 1st of June, 1992, will be appointed to point 1 of the Grade 1 scale. Progression from the scale will not be automatic but will depend on merit and suitability in the light of the requirements of the Bank. The Bank will review the operation of this grade after four years of the signing of this agreement.
The Bank's interpretation is that when read in conjunction with clause 4.1(f), clause 4.1(d) does not apply to staff recruited after the 1st of June, 1992. Its position is that it was its intention over time to limit making appointments to Grade 3 in respect of staff recruited prior to the 1st of June, 1992, ensuring that there would be no automatic promotions and to put in place a new structure for staff recruited after the 1st of June, 1992 which would meet the Bank's changing requirements.
The Unions' interpretation is that clause 4.1(d) and clause 4.1(f) continue to exist as part of the agreement. They argue that the basis for Grade 3 as a promotional outlet should continue as no agreement has been reached for its termination.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission but progress could not be made and the dispute was referred by the Unions to the Labour Court on the 17th of November,1999 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of February, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the issue of promotion to Grade 3 was initially raised by the Unions in 1997, the argument between the parties was on the promotional numbers required under the 1997 agreement. It was only at conciliation in 1999 that the Bank tabled its position that agreement had been reached with the Unions in 1992 in relation to the termination of Grade 3.
2. The Unions were shocked to hear it implied that an agreement had been made without reference to the staff and in a non-written form. A key participant of the 1992 negotiations refutes management's allegations. The Unions contend that the written agreement confirms this position.
3. Management's position will not only cause difficulties with Grade 3 as a promotional grade, it will damage relations and trust between staff and management.
4. Management expressed an aspiration that Grade 3 be terminated as a promotional outlet during negotiations with the Unions in relation to Grades 1 and 2 in February 1999. However, the Union side did not concede to the Bank's demands and the aspiration did not form part of the final proposals. Staff subsequently balloted on the proposals and the Bank is aware that if the ending of Grade 3 had formed part of the proposals, the vote would have been in the negative.
5. The Unions are seeking that clause 4.1(d) and clause 4.1(f) continue to exist as part of the agreement on terms and conditions. Despite the Bank's assertions to the contrary Grade 3 continues to exist within the industry. In the circumstances the Court is requested to find in the Unions favour and recommend that the parties meet on a local basis to determine the number of grade 3's.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to 1992 all officials in TSB Dublin enjoyed automatic promotion to Grade 3. In the Cork and Limerick Savings Bank automatic promotions had ceased. In view of developments in the Cork and Limerick Savings Bank, in the Banking Industry generally and in the light of the Bank's cost income ratio which was one of the highest in the Industry, the Bank's intention was to:-
- Over time, limit making appointments to Grade 3 in respect of staff recruited prior to the 1st of June,1992 ensuring that there would be no automatic promotions; and
- Put in place a new structure for staff recruited after the 1st of June,1992 which would meet the Bank's changing requirements.
2. The Bank's thinking in relation to this matter was outlined to the ATGWU at its request, prior to the merger (of TSB Dublin and Cork and Limerick Savings Bank) discussions commencing. (details supplied). The Bank would particularly draw the Court's attention to the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of this letter, outlining the Bank's position on promoting a guaranteed number of people within an agreed period of time.
3. Clause 4.1(f) refers to "all new staff recruited in a permanent capacity after 1/6/1992." It is clear from the literal wording of this that there were no such staff as yet recruited at that time. Clause 4.1(f) is therefore prescriptive regarding future new recruits. Moreover, it is inclusive in its scope in that it applies to "all new staff". It is therefore intended to cover staff who are new, recruited in a permanent capacity, and after the 1st of June,1992. It does not apply to any other staff. As far as these staff are concerned they are to be appointed to grade 1 and progression thereafter will not be automatic but will depend on merit and suitability in the light of the Bank's requirements.
4. The literal interpretation of clause 4.1 (d) is further confirmed by the contextual progression regarding staff development in the preceding paragraphs of Clause 4.1 of the 1992 agreement (details supplied).
Summarised, they read as follows:
- Existing Grade 2 bank officials in Dublin on the 1st of June,1992 will be automatically promoted to Grade 3.
- Existing Grade1bank officials in Cork on the 1st of June,1992 will be automatically promoted to Grade 2.
- Existing full-time TBA's in Dublin may opt for Grade 1 with automatic progression to Grade 2.
- Not less than 25% of those appointed to Grade 2 will be promoted to Grade 3.
The last mentioned can only apply to existing officials who had been recruited and were in the employment of the Bank on the 1st of June,1992. This is because clause 4.1(f) relates to "all new staff recruited in a permanent capacity after 1/6/1992". Progression for such staff is set out in (f). There would be no point in having that paragraph if (d) applied in blanket fashion to existing as well as future staff.
5. The documentation provided shows a shared understanding as to the intention of the parties in 1992. The collective agreement was intended, amongst other things, as an instrument to deal with a specific problem, namely, automatic promotion to Grade 3.
The following statistics demonstrate the application by the Bank of the agreement. (details supplied).
- Promotions from Grade 2 to Grade 3 for staff recruited before the 1st of June,1992.
- Grade Analysis of staff recruited since the 1st of June,1992.
Clause 4.1(d) is now redundant and clause 4.1(f) has governed the situation of post 1st of June,1992 recruits as of that date.
6. An individual copy of the proposed terms and conditions was sent to each staff member in June, 1992 following which the proposals were voted on by staff. The ATGWU wrote to the Bank on the 15th of July,1992 accepting the revised terms and conditions of employment. The Bank implemented the agreement bi-annually appointing a minimum of 25% of those staff who joined the Bank prior to the1st of June,1992 to Grade 3 in accordance with the terms of Clause 4.1(d).
7. In September, 1997 the Union raised an issue in relation to the lack of promotional opportunities at Grade 1 and Grade 2 level. The Bank agreed to review the Grade 1 and Grade 2 structure, as per its letter of 10th September, 1997. In this letter it was clearly stated that the review was being carried out because there would be no further automatic promotions.
8. In response to a query raised by the ATGWU, requesting clarification of the Bank's policy in relation to promotion to Grade 3, a written response was sent on the 19th March, 1998, clearly outlining the Bank's position - "that all of the staff members eligible for consideration under the terms of the 1992 agreement have now been considered and appropriate appointments made".
9. The revised proposals on Grades 1 and 2 were accepted by the Unions on the 30th of April, 1999. No objections or queries were raised by the Unions in relation to promotion to Grade 3. The Unions' acceptance of the revised Grade 1 and 2 structures confirms that there was general acceptance of the Bank's interpretation and application of Clause 4.1.
10. Management considers that it has met and exceeded its obligations under Clause 4.1(d) and has dealt with the issue in a fair and reasonable manner. It requests the Court to rule that, when read in conjunction with Clause 4.1(f), Clause 4.1(d) does not apply to staff recruited after the 1st of June,92 i.e. that interpretation (a) is correct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the Cork and Limerick employees could not have had the expectation in relation to Grade 3 as it had been discontinued prior to 1992.
The Court views the inclusion of the statement in the 1992 agreement, 4.1(d) that 25% of those upgraded to Grade 2 would be promoted to Grade 3, as indicating a change in the position that had prevailed prior to 1992.
The Court therefore decides that the Company's interpretation of the 1992 agreement is correct.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th March, 2000______________________
FB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.