FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Terms and Conditions on Promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Central Bank of Ireland is a statutory body responsible for central banking operations and financial regulation in Ireland. Since the emergence of the financial crisis in late 2008, the Bank has been in the process of reorganising its structures and operations.
The case before the Court concerns the revision by the Central Bank of Ireland of terms and conditions for all appointments of Professional and Administrative staff from December 2008, following a consultation period with the Unite Union. These revisions amended the hours of attendance and flexi-leave facilities for all new appointments. The terms and conditions for current staff remain unchanged by these proposals.
Following local discussions in October/ November 2009 it was clarified by the Bank that the amended terms and conditions would not affect serving staff unless they opted to apply for and were successful in a promotion competition - in which case a new contract would be issued.
In January 2010 the Bank and Union re-engaged in a series of discussion that focussed on resolving all outstanding issues, including the working week and flexi-leave. An amended proposal issued in April 2010. The Union did not consider that any improvement had been made to the original proposal.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th May, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd July 2010.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank maintains that given the environment in which it now operates a working week of 32.5 hours is not sustainable.
2. The Bank contends that with a potential flexi-leave accrual of 14 days and generous annual leave allowances, attendance at senior professional level is inconsistent with comparators in the public and private sector.
3. The Bank maintains that it's reorganisation has re-established the confidence of Government and the financial industry, but that this will be adversely affected if the proposed changes are not accepted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union maintains that the agreed working week and flex-leave entitlements are not significantly out of line with either the financial services industry or the Public sector in general.
2. The Union contends that flexi-leave imposes no additional cost on the Employer as the hours are worked and banked, furthermore the taking of such leave is subject to the operational requirements of the Bank and therefore the argument that such leave hinders the effectiveness of the Bank is spurious.
3. The Union maintains that the proposed increase in the working week constitutes a reduction in the hourly rate of pay and as such is unacceptable to its members.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute and taking into account the additional information that emerged in the course of the hearing the Court recommends as follows:-
Objective justification for change:
The Court is satisfied that a reputational crisis in a regulatory institution is not dissimilar to a financial crisis in a commercial organisation and may in some circumstances demand a radical response that involves changes to terms and conditions of employment. Equally the Court is of the view that any such changes should be effected through the normal industrial relations processes and should not be peremptorily imposed on either existing or new employees.
Working Hours:
Both sides indicated that significant progress had been made in direct discussions and through the LRC and the basis of a settlement had been developed between the parties. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the dispute regarding the change in weekly working hours for promoted staff should be revisited on the basis of an appropriate assimilation mechanism to offset the effect of notional reduction in hourly pay inherent therein.
Flexi Scheme:
The Court is of the view that this matter should be approached as follows:
Grades up to and including Bank Professional 3
The flexitime scheme in operation for grades up to and including Bank Professional 3 should continue without alteration.
Bank Professional 1 and Bank Professional 2 Grade
The parties should meet to agree appropriate working arrangements in respect of Bank Professional 1 and Bank Professional 2 grades. In addition the parties should make provision for modified transitional arrangements in respect of staff promoted above Bank Professional 3 level.
Emergency Cover Arrangements:
The Court noted that the parties have operated an ad hoc arrangement with regard to the provision of emergency cover within the Bank. These arrangements should be put onto a formal footing to avoid uncertainty or unnecessary delay at critical times. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties meet to agree formal arrangements that will bring certainty to the cover the Bank can expect to meet the exigencies of its operations and so that the staff will understand what has been committed to and what obligations they have to meet.
Time Scale
The parties should attempt to conclude discussions within a three month period. Any issues outstanding at that point may be referred back to the Court for a final recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th July, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.