FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC TRADING AS AIB BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Change from weekly to monthly pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Bank's intention to change paying the Workers from a weekly to a monthly basis. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26thOctober, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th January 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 16th May 2012 the Bank wrote to the Union informing them that staff would be paid on a monthly basis. There was no prior engagement with the Union prior to the announcement.
2. In 2000, as part of a comprehensive set of negotiations, it was agreed that a grant of £500 would be given to staff who would change from weekly to fortnightly paid.
3. The Unions members have contributed significantly and disproportionately in relation to other staff in the Bank.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank is continuing to review all aspects of its operations as it works towards restoring the viability of the Bank.
2. Changing the payment structure will reduce the operational risk by streamlining payroll processing within the Bank and standardise the running of the payroll into one payroll run per month for each jurisdiction.
3. As part of its goal of returning to profitability the Bank has reduced staff by 2,500, closed 67 Branches, has a pay freeze in place up to end of 2014 and has changed the Pension Scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s proposal to change from weekly pay to monthly pay. The Court notes that the issue has been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the parties. The Company has put forward a number of proposals and the implementation date for the changeover has been extended on a number of occasions. On 12thNovember 2012 the Company put forward a set of proposals incorporating seven different options. These options were based on the Company paying an advance payment equal to (up to) three weeks’ net pay which would be recouped over a defined period from three months to twenty four months, depending on each employee’s individual preference. This proposal envisaged an implementation date of 1st January 2013 for the changeover, however, as no agreement was reached by that date the Company submitted an alternative proposal with an implementation date of 1stJune 2013, details were attached to the Company’s Submission at Appendix 9.
The Union informed the Court that this issue was a very emotive issue for many of those affected. It sought to retain the current arrangement on a red-circled basis; alternatively, in addition to the Company’s proposals on an interest-free loan, it sought (i) a lump sum compensation payment; (ii) the Company to pay the benefit-in-kind (BIK)on the loan; and (iii) one of the proposed weeks’ advance payment to be offset against the employees’ “week in arrears” pay which would otherwise fall due at the end of their employment.
Having considered the submissions made by both sides the Court is of the view that the proposals outlined at Appendix 9 of the Company’s Submission should form the basis for acceptance of the proposal to implement a change from weekly pay to monthly pay, with effect from 1stJune 2013, with the following recommended amendments:-
- •The Court recommends that one of the proposed three weeks’ advance payment should be offset against the employee’s “week in arrears” pay thereby reducing the amount which must be repaid by one week.
- •As the 12thNovember 2012 proposal provided for a repayment option up to twelve months without attracting BIK then the Court recommends that this option should be restored and accordingly recommends that the Company should pay the BIK element in respect of Option 5 (12 repayments of the advance over a 12-month period).
•Every assistance should be given to employees to assist them in the changeover particularly with regard to changes which may need to be made in respect of standing orders, direct debits, etc.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
13th February, 2013Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.