FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Staffing, Roster, Reporting - Vault Officer, Introduction payment, Annual leave, Compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is dispute with management over the introduction of a shift system for the grade of Currency Assistant in relation to the issues as outlined above. It claims that a report issued by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) is flawed in that it did not examine the shift operation before and after the day shift and should also have looked at the "Skylark" operation. The Union is seeking compensation for the loss of overtime based on 61 times the weekly loss and for an additional 3 days' annual leave.
Management claims that in early 2002, shift working was proposed for a number of staff groups in currency issue and distribution areas of the currency centre which comprised Processing Staff, Vault Officers and Currency Assistants. No agreement could be reached with the Currency Assistants on the question of manning levels. The IPC Report found that the manning levels were adequate to meet the requirements of shift and day working. In relation to the loss of overtime compensation will be paid at 52 times the weekly loss. Management sees no basis for an increase in the annual leave entitlement. It is prepared to look at the claims for a pay increase and the introduction of a lump sum payment for acceptance of the proposed shift working.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in July, 2002 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th November, 2002, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd January, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no local agreement on revised shift working arrangements for Currency Assistants.
2. The workers rejected the IPC Report. They do not accept the proposed manning levels and the proposed eliminationof the foreman/assistant foreman post on the early and late shift.
3. The staff believe that the proposals in the IPC Report would place an intolerable workload on them, and will eliminate overtime and reduce the opportunity for promotion.
4. The workers believe that the IPC Report is seriously flawed, given IPC's own acknowledgement that its findings should be reviewed with the introduction of shift.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The IPC issued its Report in July, 2002 and found that the manning levels proposed by the Bank were adequate to meet the requirements of shift and day working.
2. The principal task of Currency Assistants involves the movement and storage of currency, both notes and coins, under the direction of Vault Officers.
3. Management would ask the Court to uphold the role of the Vault Officer in relation to directing and supervising Currency Assistants in the matter of storing and transport of cash.
4. The offer on shift arrangements, as validated in certain aspects by the IPC Report, provides for a fair basis for settling the issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. The Court recommends that the shift system should be operated as proposed by the company for a trial period of three months. During this period IPC should review its operation and in particular should examine the content of the work prior to and after the day shift and should also examine the “Skylark” operation.
The Court recommends that both sides should accept the outcome of the IPC review on the questions of manning levels and supervisory staff requirement.
The Court notes that the company are prepared to discuss the claims for an increase in pay and the introduction of lump sum in return for acceptance of the company’s proposals on shift working. The Court recommends that following the IPC review, the parties should discuss these claims further and finalise all outstanding issues concerning shift working. If such discussions do not result in an agreement then the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation on these issues.
In relation to the claim for 61 times the weekly loss of overtime the Court recommends that the company’s offer of 52 times the weekly loss should be accepted by the Union.
The Court sees no merit in the claim for extra annual leave and does not concede this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th January, 2003______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.