FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MANDATE AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Branch Operating Model.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of its ongoing change programme and with the objective of reducing its cost / income ratio the Company has decided to effect a reduction of staff by both voluntary severance and natural wastage. The Company proposes to centralise and automate the credit lending function, which it maintains constitutes a significant workload for the senior staff in a branch. This will achieve a reduction on overall branch numbers by 60. It also proposes to change the management structure in some of its branches by twinning up to 40 branches out of a total of approximately 100. This means that one Manager will be appointed to manage two branches - 20 Managers will manage 40 branches. The core of the dispute relates to the difference between the parties on whether a negotiation should take place or whether the Company's proposals are encompassed within on-going change envisaged under various flexibility and change agreements. The Unions maintain the Company's proposals are beyond what was envisaged in these agreements and that negotiations must take place on the changes proposed. 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 9th June, 2005 in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 28th July, 2005.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company's objective in twinning/merging of branches whereby one manager will now be responsible for two branches represents a fundamental change to the branch ranking structure as set out in section 5 of the March,2003 agreement on terms and conditions of employment, which provides for one manager in each branch. There is no text contained in the flexibility agreement which provides the Company to unilaterally alter existing terms and conditions without agreement and negotiation.
3. 1. For the Company to alter the staffing and or the management structure of the branches requires the re-negotiation of these agreements. While there have been meetings with Management these have only been on the basis of information exchanges and the Company has not entered into any meaningful negotiations or engagement. The Unions disagree fundamentally with the Company's position that the Company's proposals are catered for in flexibility agreements. The Unions are seeking to enter negotiations in accordance with the procedural agreement with due regard being given to existing agreements and other agreements affected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes proposed are urgently required to address the Company's competitive position, which when compared to competitors is very unfavourable and threatens the competitiveness and ultimately the viability of the business. The introduction of branch twinning does not impact on terms and conditions of employment. The management structure of a branch network would not form part of terms and conditions of employment. In addition no staff member is at any financial loss whatsoever arising from this change.
2. The Company is firmly of the view that staff have already agreed and have been generously compensated for on-going cooperation with change through the Flexibility and Change agreements. The proposed change in the branch structure is clearly covered by these agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Company's proposal to change the management structure in its branches by twinning up to 40 branches out of a total of 100, whereby one manager will have responsibility for managing more than one branch. The Company submits that the changes are necessary to address its serious cost/income ratio problem.
The Unions object to Management's proposals stating that they contravene existing agreements and that any proposed changes to staffing and management levels must be negotiated and agreed between the parties in accordance with agreed procedures.
The Court notes that the parties have in place Change Agreements for both former TSB and former Irish Permanent staff, and domestic agreements dealing with -Ranking in Branches and Branch Planning Model.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the parties should, consistent with the change agreements, re-engage on the proposals and negotiate a resolution to the Company's problems. Discussions should centre around the impact these proposals will have on the managers concerned and on the existing agreements. These negotiations should commence without delay and should be completed before the end of September, 2005.
If the parties fail to agree on all aspects, they may come back to the Court for a further recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th August, 2005
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.