FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Restoration of Pay Differential
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22 July 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 September 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Employer has eroded the differential between the craft workers commencement rate and the full technician rate.
2. The Union is seeking the restoration of this 7% differential and agreements upheld with full retrospection back to November 2015.
3. This is not a claim for a pay increase and the provisions of FEMPI legislation do not restrict the Employer from rectifying the problem they created.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS
4.1. In 2015 the Bank advertised both internally and externally to fill two positions at the technician grade.No objection to this process was raised at the time and the only internal candidate to apply was successfully appointed. An external candidate who, following an independent external assessment, was deemed to possess the requisite skills and experience to perform all the functions of this role was appointed. The Unions are party to benchmarking agreements which among other areas commits them to cooperation with changes to recruitment procedures.
2. The Employer believes that the Unions' claim for a restoration of differential pay has no merit given the circumstances of the recruitment process used in line with established agreements.
3. The claim if conceded would constitute a clear breach of FEMPI legislation to which the Bank is bound.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission made by both parties, the Court notes that it is not in dispute that up until November 2015 the entry point for newly appointed electricians was to the craft grade, following which on attainment of specific training and acquired skills, the craftsperson could proceed on promotion to the Technician Grade, which attracted a 7% differential over the craft rate.
The current dispute arose over the filling of two electrical positions directly at Technician level, which the Unions claim was not only a break with the established practice but in their opinion eroded the 7% differential, which they now seek to restore. The Unions contended that this was a breach of the long established agreed position between the parties.
Management stated that the positions were advertised at Technician level and were filled by both an internal candidate and an external candidate following an independent assessment which found that they fulfilled the criteria for the role. It stated that as a result of the passage of time and technological changes, the availability of skilled technicians in the external market with the required skills has allowed the Bank to consider external recruitment directly onto the Technician grade.
The Court is of the view that the successful appointees to the positions should be retained in their positions, hold their Technicians’ rate of pay and fulfil their training commitments. However, the Court is of the view, having considered the current circumstances, that the established recruitment practice prior to the disputed one is no longer fit for purpose. The Court recommends the parties should meet to discuss and agree a new recruitment process, such negotiations should commence with immediate effect and the services of the Workplace Relations Commission should be availed of, if necessary.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3 October 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.