FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Hearing arising from LCR17375.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are two issues before the Court: 1. Clarification of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR17375. 2. Operation of Branch Activity Management System (BAM's).
Issue 1. The Union concerned (AT&GWU), are requesting the Court to uphold the integrity of it's previous recommendation together with that of the Labour Relation's Commission's proposals recommended by both parties. They maintain that this can only be done on the basis that Management are prepared to honour the recommendation and pay the 7.7% for the concessions which are out lined on page 12 of the agreement negotiated between the parties.
Issue 2. The Union are maintaining that Management attempted to link the funding of the 7.7% and the Group Profit Sharing Scheme (GPSS) with the non completion of the disputed sections of the BAM's and that the introduction of BAM's would mean the individualisation of targets for Managers.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred again to the Labour Court on the 18th December, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR 17375.
3.1The agreement negotiated by the parties and signed on the 11th March 2003 in return for concessions being made by staff to facilitate participation in the Banks Group Profit Sharing Scheme (GPSS). There was significant tax savings for participation in this scheme. In return for this offer the Managers concerned had to agree to a number of concessions contained in Page 12 of the Agreement under the heading "Managers Remuneration"
- Deferral of a 4% increase on 21st June 2002 for 9 months to 1st April 2003
- Discontinuance of the following:
- LPP Bonus,
- Club Subscription Scheme,
- Uniform Allowance,
- Telephone Allowance
2. Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17575 was accepted on the clear understanding that Page 12 gave sufficient concession to the Bank to fund the GPSS for Managers
3. Funding of the GPSS was an issue common to all staff as the rules of the Scheme dictated that the Bank must offer the scheme on a similar terms basis to all staff. Page 12 is essentially a formula for Managers to participate in the scheme and this is in keeping with similar arrangements made for all grades of staff as contained in the agreement of 11th March, 2003. The Union believed that what the Labour Court referred to was the Banks proposed remuneration package for Managers to be negotiated separately from the agreement within 10 weeks from the date of acceptance of the agreement.
Branch Activity Management System (BAM'S).
4.The Union maintains and that the introduction of BAM's would mean the individualisation of targets for Managers.
5. The Union are concerned that Management would have the right to enter into negotiations with Unions on a new remuneration package for Managers based on the principal of pay related performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR 17375.
4.1. The Company believes that it has correctly interpreted the Labour Court Recommendation LRC 17375
2. The Company is available for negotiations on the totality of the issues on Page 12 including a new reward structure for Managers. They are also prepared to offer the separate agreement as outlined in appendix 3 i.e. "to resolve the issue, following a request from a representative of the joint union negotiating body (4.4.2.) agreed to implement the proposals outlines on Page 12 subject to changes to the effective dates - provided Managers agreed to implement BAM's system fully"The vast majority of Managers represented by the 4.4.2. negotiating body agreed to these proposals.
Branch Activity Management System (BAM'S).
3. The introduction of BAM's is an essential tool to assist with the development the Company's business and to maintain its position as one of the leading Financial Services Companies in Ireland.
4. The introduction of BAM's includes referrals specifically arranged by Managers, and is an essential tool to increase profitability and reduce cost/income ratio.
5. BAM's does not impact in any way on the terms and conditions of Managers.
6. The Company's view is that BAM's is provided for in the Flexibility Agreement and that managers should agree to fully utilise the system.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Clarification of Recommendation LCR17375
The Court recommended that in so far as issues relating to managers are separate from the generality of issues common to all staff in the proposed agreement, they should be dealt with in local negotiations.
Page 12 of the proposed agreement referred to in the recommendation is headed "Managers Remuneration" and relates only to managers. The matter delineated in this page of the proposed agreement are, therefore, issues relating to managers and are separate from the generality of issues common to all staff. The fact that there may be similarities between those issues and issues affecting other staff, does not alter the position in this regard.
It was the Court's intention that the issues referred to at page 12 of the proposed agreement should be dealt with separately in local negotiations.
2. Branch Activity Management System (BAM'S).
The Court notes the assurance of management that the BAM's system is not intended to impose a sales target on Managers. It is also noted that the system has been accepted and operated by the majority of Managers affected.
Taken in context the introduction of the BAM system is part of ongoing change within the bank. The Court does not consider that the requirements of this system impose an undue burden on Managers nor does the Court believe that it constitutes a change in their terms and conditions of employment.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the system now be accepted and implemented by the Managers associated with this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th_March, 2004______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.