FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR 17570 and LCR 18163.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the late 1990's and early 2000's the Bank concluded agreements with all staff groups which provided increased pay rates for productivity and work practice changes, etc. The Agreement for the Clerical Administrative group included a unique benchmarking exercise which the Unions claim yielded higher increases to this group than those to other groups. The Unions submitted claims for a similar benchmarking process for groups excluded from round one of benchmarking. The Court in LCR 17570 and LCR18163 recommended that the next round of benchmarking should also include the groups referred to and should also take into account anomalies created by their omission form the first round of benchmarking. Since the beginning of 2006 the parties have engaged in discussions on arrangements for a benchmarking exercise in the Bank. The Unions contend that there should be a preliminary stage to the benchmarking exercise and to this end proposed a clause within the terms of reference which states:
"As a first step the benchmarking exercise would examine the anomalies created by the omission of grades from round one of benchmariking as recommended in LCR 17570 and LCR 18163."
The Bank rejected the proposal on the basis that a pay benchmarking exercise could not include a separate process composed of an internal examination of pay awards or pay levels between unrelated jobs and grades within the Bank to be followed by an external benchmarking review. The parties were unable to progress matters following a series of meetings and in July, 2006, the Bank sought the assistance of the Court in reaching a resolution of the issue. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 7th December, 2006.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. The revised wording should meet the Bank's requirements in that it now allows the benchmarking tribunal to find, if the evidence is there, that no anomalies were created in benchmarking one and further that it meets the clarification from the Court " that any examination of the claims to which your letter refers should be carried out within the benchmarking exercise for the group in question".
2. The Bank contends that their benchmarking exercise mirrors the public service benchmarking. This is true of the current round but was not the case for the previous round. Therefore, to try to and address any anomalies remaining from the previous round by calculating these, based on the new rules, would only create further anomalies rather than resolve existing ones as recommended by the Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank is committed to engaging a benchmarking exercise for all staff groups in the organisation.
2. The Bank's benchmarking exercise cannot include a separate process to consider an internal pay relativity claim. It is the Bank's view that the Unions' claims should be addressed within the benchmarking exercise as proposed in LCR's 17570 and 18163 and further clarified by the Court in January, 2006, and not by a two-step approach.
3. The Bank is requesting the Court confirms that its objective in having an independent benchmarking process, that would be carried out comparing all aspects of jobs in the Bank with external comparators in the public and private sectors, is fully consistent with current pay practice across the public sector and with LCR's 17570 and 18163.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the parties should accept and adopt the following text in relation to the disputed paragraph within the terms of reference
" In the course of this exercise, the benchmarking tribunal will examine any imbalances that may have been created by the omission of grades from round one of benchmarking, particularly as recommended in LCR 17570 and LCR 18163".
and that the parties should then proceed as quickly as possible to establish the tribunal and begin the benchmarking process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th December, 2006
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.