FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - AMICUS MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Integration payments and conditions
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves the final stage in the integration/harmonisation of the terms and conditions of employment of former Irish Permanent and TSB Bank clerical staff and the terms and conditions of employment for new Permanent TSB clerical staff. Prior to the purchase of the TSB Bank by Irish Life and Permanent plc, TSB management negotiated a Flexibility Agreement which provided for 14.9% of the money received from whoever purchased the Bank being used to purchase shares, which would be held in an ESOT for TSB employees. This agreement was concluded before Irish Life and Permanent offer to purchase the TSB was accepted.
The Union states that the agreement reached with the TSB unions has put former Irish Permanent Staff behind in their terms and conditions of employment relative to their TSB colleagues. The Union claims that management must make provision within its proposals for harmonisation of the Union's members as follows:-
- (1) A payment of a lump sum of €13.5m.
- (2) The advancement of our salary scales to that of the former TSB Grade 3 scale.
(3) Increase in holiday entitlement by 2 days.
- (2) The advancement of our salary scales to that of the former TSB Grade 3 scale.
- (6) Increase in annual bonus by 0.7%.
(7) The percentage of temporary staff to remain at 5%.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It states that the improvements in benefits as set out in its revised document of 5th February, 2003 for Permanent TSB staff should be accepted.
As there was no agreement between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th April, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st May, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The company are seeking to disadvantage the pay and benefits of our members while enhancing the pay and benefits of the staff of the former Trustee Savings Bank(TSB).2. The Bank did not act in good faith. Inequity has been created in the treatment of our members and our colleagues in the former TSB in the process as a result of this "concealed"style of bargaining.
3. Management has created this situation by its inequity and its differing bargaining approaches between our members and the former TSB unions.4. Management has failed to complete negotiations in a parallel way as the union had sought earlier on in the negotiations.5. The integration agreement of July, 2001 and Labour Court Recommendation LCR16868 has been seriously undermined and could well unravel through the provisions of the Bank's agreement with the former TSB unions unless these matters are addressed satisfactorily.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute arises following negotiations on the integration/harmonisation of terms and conditions of employees, after the takeover of the TSB by the Irish Life and Permanent Group.
While there appears to have been an understanding as to the process involved in the negotiations, the Union believes that they were disadvantaged and misled by Management in relation to the package agreed to with the TSB Employees.
The Union believes that Management created a situation of inequity by its differing bargaining approaches to the two Groups, and its unwillingness to complete negotiations in a parallel way as had been sought by this Group.
The Union argue that the negotiations resulted in an imbalance in the treatment of their members as against the treatment of former TSB staff. They listed a number of areas which they believed the other Group had done better and capitalised these areas at approximately €13 million.
Management's position is that they concluded an agreement with the Union that included some changes in terms and conditions, red circled others and provided salary increases and significant lump sum payments. They are adamant that they concluded the negotiations in a fair and equitable manner.
The Court, having considered the information before it is satisfied that the negotiations brought benefits to all the relevant parties.
It is clear that in an integration such as this, between two major Companies, the necessary harmonisation of terms and conditions will result in some gains and possible losses.
The negotiations required concessions to be made by all sides in order to bring both workforces under the same Management and into the same operation.
The cost of the Union's claim is over €13million and to a great extent amounts to a renegotiation of the agreement.
The Court can see no basis for conceding the claim to this particular Group, and is conscious that to do so would merely unravel the agreements in position at this point in time.
The Court believes these negotiations should be seen as completed and that any anomalies that arise on an ongoing basis should be raised in future discussions between the Company and the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd July, 2003______________________
LW/LWChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.