FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for the introduction of Benchmarking.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 42 currency checkers and supervisors. The Union's claim is for the introduction of a Benchmarking exercise to examine the remuneration of these workers and that any award should be retrospective to May, 2002. The Union maintains that the currency checkers and supervisors have been treated less favourably than the Bank's clerical staff with whom they have had a traditional relativity. An agreement reached in respect of the clerical staff had included a Benchmarking exercise which was concluded in 2002 and pay awards were implemented from May, 2002. The Union's claim was rejected by the Bank. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th November, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 31st March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Benchmarking is a fundamental element in both the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress Agreements and the claim is consistent with these agreements.
2. Virtually all other categories of employees in the Public Sector received Benchmarking awards some considerable time ago and many are now expecting a second Benchmarking award.
3. Since 1998 the claimants have had a pay relativity with the Bank's clerical employees. Both groups of workers received the special 2% local bargaining clause under Clause 2 (iii) of the Partnership 2000 Agreement.
4. While Management state that the Bank is 'agreeable to Benchmarking only within the SP Agreement' there have been no proposals for such an award and the Union's claim that the award be effective from May, 2002 has been rejected by the Bank. In refusing to agree to this date the Bank is treating the claimants less favourably than their clerical employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank has concluded productivity deals with various groups including the claimants. While these agreements had yielded different amounts to different groups this reflected very much the extent of productivity concessions made by the different groups.
3. The question of a Benchmarking process for service staff groups ( including security, cleaning, catering, currency assistants and porters) was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation in August, 2003. In LCR 17570 the Court recommended that a Benchmarking exercise take place "......in the next round of negotiations". Accordingly Benchmarking exercises are planned across the Bank in the Summer of 2005 in accordance with the schedule set out in the Second Part of the SP Agreement. This process would also apply to the currency checkers and supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the paries, the Court is of the view that the Union should co-operate with the future Benchmarking process in the same manner as outlined in LCR 17570, which according to the Bank should occur in Summer, 2005.
In this exercise, the Court would expect that due account would be taken, both of overall losses which may have been suffered by this group not having been included in the previous round of Benchmarking, and of gains they have made in other areas during the same period.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th April, 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.