FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED IRISH BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of Tea Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a unilateral decision by Allied Irish Bank (AIB) to change the criteria by which the Union members in CSSO grades and Security qualify for a 'tea allowance'. The Bank are seeking the cessation of the allowance which it maintains is being claimed in breach of the qualifying criterion for such entitlement. The Union is seeking the restoration of the allowance.
A tea allowance is an allowance that was introduced by the Bank as a subsistence payment for staff members working overtime beyond the normal finishing time. Included among the staff members with such an entitlement are Customer Staff Support Officials (CSSO's), Computer Sorters and Security Guards.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two 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 30th November 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th March 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Banks' argument that it mistakenly paid out the allowance over the last decade is untenable and incredible.
2. The Union's members have already conceded to significant losses in overtime payments and have suffered in some cases a substantial drop in take-home pay.
3. The Union maintains that the Bank has been wholly inconsistent in the manner in which the withdrawal of the allowance has taken place. There are still employees in the grades represented by the Union in receipt of this allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank maintains that the entitlement to claim and be paid a tea allowance is linked solely to the staff member working beyond the normal finishing time. The allowance is to provide subsistence to staff working overtime in excess of their normal working day.
2. In the majority of cases there has been a correct application of the policy in relation to the claiming of tea allowances. However, in a minority of cases, as in those referred to in this claim, the instruction as set out in the Information Bulletin has been incorrectly applied.
3. In the context of the Security Guards there is a requirement to be at work in excess of nine hours in order to claim the relevant meal allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the agreement on the Tea Allowance may be somewhat loosely worded, it appears to the Court that the intention of the parties to that agreement was that the allowance should apply to staff who are required to work a longer than normal day, i.e in excess of eight hours.
It is clear, however, that the allowance was paid on a different basis to those associated with this claim over a prolonged period. In these circumstances the Court is of the view that the fairest means of addressing the issue would be for the parties to conclude an agreement whereby those associated with this claim would be compensated for the discontinuance of the allowance.
The parties should have discussions on an appropriate level of compensation. If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th March 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.