FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Euro changeover compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 2 issues in dispute. The first is the lump sum payable to jobsharers and permanent part-time workers (PPTs) in the Bank, and the second is the amount of overtime paid to staff who had to attend their branch on the 1st of January, 2002, for the Euro changeover.
The Unions' case in the first instance is that they believed that a €762 lump sum would be paid to all staff in the Branch Network, and that this would apply pro-rata to jobsharers and PPTs. This belief resulted following a conciliation conference on the 14th of December, 2001, at the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). The Unions subsequently discovered that jobsharers and PPTs in the industry had received the full amount and they now want this to apply to jobsharers and PPTs in the Bank.
In the second instance, the Unions' case is that, following agreement at the LRC, normal overtime rates plus 30%, subject to a minimum of €190, would apply to all employees who worked up to 2 hours' overtime on the 1st of January, 2002. If employees worked more than 2 hours, the Unions maintain that the Bank agreed to pay overtime for the additional hours plus the €190. A number of employees did work more than the 2 hours and the Unions are now seeking payment for these additional hours worked. The Bank's case is that it applied payment as had been agreed at the LRC.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of April, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of June, 2003. At the hearing, both parties admitted that there could have been a misunderstanding as to what exactly had been agreed.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Following the conciliation conference at the LRC, the Union believed that jobsharers and PPTs would be paid pro-rata to full-time staff. This was agreed within the context of agreements reached within the Associated Banks, AIB Tribunal. The Unions subsequently learned that jobsharers and PPTs had received the full amount.
2. The Bank categorically stated that it expected staff would spend no more than 2 hours in work on January 1st, 2002. In the event, a number of employees worked additional hours. The Bank assured the Union that additional overtime would be paid on top of the €190 minimum for the 2 hours
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposal from the LRC on the 14th of December, 2001, was balloted on and accepted by the members, and was implemented in full by the Board. The Union are now seeking to introduce new elements over and above what was agreed.
2. In both cases, the method of payment was made clear to the Unions, i.e. pro-rata for part-time workers and PPTs, and a minimum €190 for 2 hours' work on January 1st, 2002. The agreement reached between the parties was not subject to alteration because of developments in the other Financial Institutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends in relation to the two issues referred as follows:
Payment of Euro Compensation Payment.
It appears to the Court that due to the time pressures under which they negotiated, the parties may have been at cross purposes as to the treatment of job-sharers and part-time staff under the terms agreed with other banks.
The Court noted that the agreement between the former TSB and the Group of Unions provides, in effect, for parity of conditions with the Associated Banks. In the Court's view, adherence to the spirit of this agreement requires that the Euro compensation payments should also be on the same basis.
It is further noted that this agreement is carried forward to Permanent TSB, in respect of former TSB staff. It would, however, be unfair to treat employees who are not encompassed by its terms differently, and for this reason the Court recommends that the Unions' claim be conceded in respect of all relevant staff.
Overtime
The Court regards the position taken by the Company as reasonable in all the circumstances and recommends that it be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th June, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.