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 Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay, filling of posts, payment for introduction of ISO 9002.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a packaging rate, permanent manning of machine, and payment for the introduction of ISO 9002 for general assistants employed in the Mint department of the Central Bank. The matter was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th March 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work in packaging has a higher level of responsibility than the work which attracted 8% rate paid elsewhere and therefore a higher rate should apply.
2. Two additional Supervisors were made permanent without any consultation or agreement with the Union.
3. Existing shift agreement states "contract staff will be offered any existing and future vacancies, for permanent positions, subject to satisfactory performance."
4. The Union have made numerous representations to have two temporary staff made permanent.
5. The Union is of the opinion that their claims are justified given that a number of additional flexibilities were being conceded by the members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The range of duties attaching to the Schuler machine have been reduced.
- 2. There is no basis for paying one group of staff more than another group within the Mint.
- 3. The issue of quality procedures is covered by the 1998 Agreement with the staff and there is no basis for compensation for co-operation with quality procedures that do not involve changes in basic work practices.
- 4. Failure to co-operate with quality change would be detrimental to future euro coin production in Ireland.
RECOMMENDATION:
MACHINE RATE/CO-OPERATION WITH ADDITIONAL FLEXABILITIES.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court believes that the Bank's offer represents adequate compensation for the changes expected of the staff involved. Accordingly the Court does not recommend any change in that offer.
APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT SUPERVISORS
The Court accepts that the manner in which these appointments were made did disadvantage existing temporary staff who could legitimately have expected an opportunity to obtain permanency. However, the Court cannot undo what the Bank has done with regard to these appointments. Neither can the Court recommend that the bank create additional permanent posts which would not be sustainable in the near future.
The Court recommends that this dispute be resolved by the Bank offering and the Union accepting an offer of £250 (317.43 Euros.) to each temporary machine and general assistant serving at the date of the disputed appointments.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/BR
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.