Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A worker

A Bank

Representatives

Billy Barrett, Financial Services Union

Internal HR

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA – 00054000 - 001

05th December 2022.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st June 2005. At the time of the complaint, she was employed as a Quality Official.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 5th December 2022.

At the hearing scheduled for the 13th June 2023 the Banks representatives put forward an objection to the hearing taking place. The objection was based on their view that they had already objected to an Adjudicator hearing the case and therefore the case should/could not be heard.

The adjudicator on the day, confirmed that there was no record of any objection to the hearing, however he could not proceed on the basis that the Employer was objecting to the hearing. He did however undertake to investigate how the records seemed to be confused in terms of whether the objection was in fact received by the Commission.

 It was noted on the day that the address that the employer had sent the objection to was incorrect and that this may have been at the root of the problem. The Adjudicator confirmed that he would postpone the hearing, review the facts of the objection and then decide whether the matter should indeed be heard.

On foot of the investigation, it was found that the Employer had in fact sent in their objection to the wrong address and therefore was incorrectly lodged, therefore due to this fundamental mistake on the employer’s behalf that the case should proceed as planned. The WRC confirmed that they would set a new date for a hearing.

The complaint was eventually held on 16th April 2024.

In complaints submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, the Complainant is referred to as the Worker and the Respondent is referred to as the Employer.

Introduction

1.1 While the issue referred to the WRC specifically relates to the treatment of the Worker this issue must be seen in the context of wider developments affecting all bank employees in the context of acting up, and in respect of collective agreements in that regard.

1.2 The Financial Services Union put in place a comprehensive agreement for employees in the Bank to map from what was a grading system for roles, to a levelling system for roles. All positions in the Bank Group were mapped on the basis of their role description and level of responsibility/accountability into one of seven levels. Level 1 being the entry level grade, with Level 7 being the executive level in the Bank inclusive of the CEO.

1.3 As an outcome of that agreement the HRQMO role was mapped to Level 3 across the Branch network. There was no other similar role or role with only part of the accountabilities or responsibilities. The agreement was for that role to be Level 3 and anyone mapped or recruited into the role in the future was to be a level 3.

1.4 A number of years following that agreement, the Union became aware of a practice by the Bank (the Employer) of asking some employees in the Branch network to take on some of the HRQMO duties but not all those duties. They were in some instances referred to as the QMO, so they carried out some of the accountabilities along with doing their own duties. The Union, once aware of this anomaly, moved quickly to ensure that any employee carrying out any of the HRQMO duties without the ranking of Level 3 should be appointed immediately at Level 3. If the Bank wished to introduce some new bespoke role, then this new role and Level for that role would need to be agreed with the Union.

1.5 The Union also has in place two agreements with the Bank, a Progression Agreement and our Temporary Higher-Level Agreement. The Progression Agreement allows for individual to take on extra accountabilities/responsibilities but within their Level. In those instances, the Progression agreement would apply, and members would receive 5% permanent increase to their salary for taking on those responsibilities. Where members took on the accountabilities/responsibilities of a colleague at a higher level in the Bank on a temporary basis, the received a 5% temporary increase to their salary, where this continued for more than 12 months and the role became permanent, then a further 5% was paid to salary and the individual would move to that Level above them. In both instances agreement must be reached in advance as to whether either agreement applies ergo members do not have to take on any extra duties/responsibilities/accountabilities until they know whether it is covered by a Progression payment of a THLA. The onus is on management to clarify this situation in advance and should have clarity from HR before asking any member of staff to take on such qualifying tasks. Both the Progression Agreement and the THLA were made available to the hearing.

1.6 There has been a practice in the past in the Bank where managers across the business would ask employees to take on extra duties/accountabilities/responsibilities with a vague promise of been taken care of in terms of a pay increase or a promotion shortly afterwards. The phrase “it will be good for your career” was common. However, in many instances these false promises were never fulfilled and members were burdened with these extra duties/accountabilities/responsibilities without the relevant salary increase. The Progression Agreement and the THLA were put in place to end this practice. The agreements clearly set out that management must in the first instance seek to see whether the extra duties warrant a Progression or THLA in advance of asking any individual to take on these extra duties.

1.7 The Worker is a prime example of an individual asked to take on these extra duties/accountabilities/responsibilities without receiving the relevant payment. Management should have ensured compliance with the collective agreements in advance of asking our member to do the extra work. We are here today Chair to ensure fairness in the application of collective agreements across the Bank.

1.8 The Union suspects that the Bank will argue that the Worker did in fact receive a Progression payment and continues to benefit from this payment. The contents of the Progression agreement, the Bank failed to follow the agreed process for this payment and therefore are in breach of that agreement. There is also the small matter of the THLA that the Bank also breached.

Background

2.1 The Worker began her employment in the Bank in 2005 and was made permanent in 2006. She subsequently took a career break in 2008 for 1 year to go travelling. She then returned to Gweedore/Dungloe branch doing Foreign Exchange and customer service. She then moved to Raphoe branch until its closure where she then moved to Ballybofey in 2013 and has remained there since.

2.2 The Worker is a Qualified Financial Advisor and holds a Certificate in Residential Mortgage Arrears. Her experience is in general Banking along with Mortgage work. The HRQMO role was for a period of time in addition to her duties in the Branch and she was asked to support the then HRQMO in the role, this support was requested in 2018.

2.3 It should be noted that the Progression agreement and THLA were only put in place in 2019.

2.4 Ms EMcF was the HRQMO in the Ballybofey branch at the time and was a Level 3. The Worker acted up into the role when Ms EMcF was on leave or absent for whatever reason. The Worker would have attended regional meetings in that particular role over the period. You will also note Chair that neither agreement covers short term absences or annual leave cover.

2.5 Ms EMcF left the Bank in November2021. Prior to her departure from the Bank the then manager of Ballybofey branch, announced that the Worker would be taking over Ms EMcF’s role. The Worker worked at that time a 4-day week, having every Thursday off, as part of taking on these extra duties, responsibilities, accountabilities the Worker committed to working every Thursday morning.

2.6 It was confirmed to the Worker at the time that she would not be promoted into the role but that she would have to take on the duties/responsibilities/accountabilities on an ongoing basis.

2.7 The Worker did approach the hub manager Letterkenny, who advised the Worker that she should trial the role for 6 months and review performance after that trial period.

2.8 In May 2022 the Worker approached the Local Market leader seeking an understanding as to the position and whether she should be upgraded to Level 3 for carrying out the HRQMO role.

2.9 The advice given at that time was that the Worker should approach the new hub manager.

2.10 The Worker was advised at the time that as Ballybofey branch already had a Level 4 in situ and a Level 3 in the branch, it could not warrant another role at this level. The amount of business in the branch would not indicate the need to have two Level 3s and a Level 4.

2.11 The Worker’s Performance reviews for both 2021 and 2022 point to her carrying out part of the HRQMO Role.

2.12 This whole issue was causing the Worker some stress and anxiety in the workplace. Then in September 2022 the Worker requested time off to spend with her father whose health had taken a sudden dramatic turn. On the 21st of September 2022 he sadly passed away. The following day the Worker’s sister tragically and suddenly passed away also. These sudden tragic events caused major stress to the Worker; she was subsequently put on certified sick leave by her GP. She continued to comply with the Banks sick leave policy.

2.13 The Worker continued to conform with all the requirements of the sick leave policy and attended the Banks doctor on a regular basis. The advice at the time was that she could return to work on a phased basis, and that this should not be back to Ballybofey branch.

2.14 As soon as the Worker left on sick leave in late September, following the tragic events of the 21st and 22nd of September, Ms PB, HRQMO Donegal Town was moved into the Ballybofey branch on the 3rd October. Her role in Donegal Town branch was covered on an interim basis, advertised in February 2023 and filled in March 2023. These roles remain at Level 3, the very level that the Worker was seeking from the time that she took on the responsibilities of the HRQMO role in Ballybofey.

2.15 The Union raised the matter through the agreed grievance process, the Worker remained on Sick leave, the bank was unwilling to overturn their position on the matter, and the Union subsequently referred the matter to the WRC.

2.16 At a hearing in the WRC on the 13th June the Bank argued that as they had already objected to an Adjudicator hearing the case, that the hearing could not go ahead. The hearing was deferred, and it was later found that the Bank had not correctly put forward their objection, therefore the hearing was to be reopened at a later date.

2.17 The constant delays in addressing the matter and the stress associated with that on top of the stress of the close family bereavements, had a detrimental impact on the Worker, she could not continence a return to work with the Bank and she was informed on the 26th August of the need to return to a Branch in Donegal, either Ballybofey or another branch. She informed HR that she could not return to one of the branches and advised them of her wish to leave the Bank. She heard nothing further from the Bank until 7th/8th September that her resignation was accepted.

FSU Case

3.1 The Union has three main areas of concern in relation to this particular breach of our collective agreements. These being that the Employer appointed the Worker into a non-existing role, that they failed to apply the agreed THLA or Progression agreement and that they doubled down on these irregularities by appointing someone into the role, at the correct grade, immediately following the Worker’s absence due to ill health.

3.2 The most glaring fact that is undeniable by the Bank is that there is no role in the Bank called the QMO role. The Bank along with the FSU completed a comprehensive review of all grades and roles across the Bank. All of the roles within the group were mapped onto the new Levels across the group, the HRQMO role mapped to Level 3.

3.3 There have been proven instances whereby local retail management appointed individuals into what they describe as not the full HRQMO role and therefore those individuals carrying out not the full gambit of the role did not meet the requirements to be moved to Level 3 in the group career model. When the Union became aware of these anomalies we moved quickly and have ensured that any individual in such roles were indeed appointed into Level 3 in the career model. There is no individual in the retail network carrying out a QMO role.

3.4 The Union is and remains available for discussions with the Bank in respect to the introduction of a QMO role but to date the Bank has failed to bring forward any proposals for such a role.

3.5 The Worker did receive a Progression payment In August 2022, this followed a brief conversation with her line manager with no real adherence to the progression agreement and the payment was made then in the August payroll run.

3.6 Attention is drawn to the Progression agreement and we would ask your opinion as to whether this conversation and the manner in which the Worker was given the payment is in line with the agreement as set out.

3.7 We would strongly argue that as the Bank failed to follow due process that they should have sat down with the Worker when she first took on the role of a person at a higher grade. The bank should have reviewed with HR the option of application of a THLA, it is the opinion of the Union that this does indeed meet those criteria. Given that she carried out this role for over 12 months and that the Bank has not replaced the individual that previously carried out the role, the Worker therefore should have automatically moved to Level 3 as she continued to carry out that role until she unfortunately had to go on Sick Leave.

3.8 The Worker, when taking on the role committed to working every Thursday morning despite have an agreement in place for a 4-day week including every Thursday morning. This fact must also be taken into account, why would any employee give up their agreed day off had it not been for the expectation of reward.

3.9 In respect to the progression payment, it is the opinion of the Union that once more that Bank are relying on the mention of Progression to shy away from the real matter at hand, whether this is a HRQMO Role or not. It is the Unions contention that it was, is and continues to be a Level 3 HRQMO role. We are of the opinion that it should have been replaced when the previous incumbent left and that the Worker should have been afforded the opportunity to apply for the vacancy when it occurred. Proper succession management would have ensured this.

3.10 You cannot ignore the fact that as soon as the Worker left on sick leave in late September, following the tragic events of the 21st and 22nd of September, Ms PB, HRQMO Donegal Town was moved into Ballybofey branch on the 3 rd October, only 2 weeks later. The role in Donegal Town branch was covered on an interim basis, advertised in February 2023 and filled in March 2023.

3.11 The Bank moved quickly in appointing Ms PB to her role in Ballybofey and also moved quickly to replace her role in Donegal Town. Clearly there was a need for the Role in both locations, that begs the question as to why THE Worker wasn’t afforded the same level of urgency. Why was the role not filled with urgency when the initial holder of the position departed.

3.12 It is clear that in all of the above that FSU member has been the victim of the Banks failure to apply their agreed processes in relation to the replacement of the HRQMO role in Ballybofey branch. The Bank cannot stand over their actions in this case and should have addressed the concerns of the Worker at the time and not leave her in limbo. The continued refusal of the Bank to deal with this matter contributed to the Worker’s failing health and subsequently left her with no option other than resigning from the Bank.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Bank has failed the Worker. She had many years of loyal hard work, evidenced by her performance reviews. She took on extra duties, responsibilities and accountabilities on the basis that taking on these extra responsibilities would mean at the very least a THLA if not promotion.

Management failed to follow agreed procedures, policies and collective agreements in this regard. They used all manner of excuses not to apply the correct grade to our member. It is clear by their actions that there was indeed a need for a HRQMO role in the Branch and this is evidenced by the appointment of an individual to the role as soon as the Worker went on Sick Leave. The actions of management in that regard added to the stress and anxiety of our member and must be called out for failure to treat the Worker in a fair and equitable manner.

The time delays and unwillingness to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency also added to the ongoing stress and anxiety of the Worker.

To add insult to injury the Bank then arrived at the WRC for a hearing of the case, objecting to the hearing, delaying matters further. It is the Banks sole responsibility for the delay in hearing this matter, they failed to submit their objection, if they had submitted their objection correctly then the Union could have taken other routes to deal with the case, but we could not for instance refer the matter onto the court under relevant legislation.

Arising from her continued disappointment and frustration with the Bank to deal with her issues adequately and in a timely manner, for health reasons the Worker has left her employment in the Bank.

We are aware that as the Worker is no longer an employee of the Bank that you are limited in what you can offer/recommend in relation to resolution. Had the Worker remained in employment we would have been seeking promotion to Level 3 from the time that she took on the duties of HRQMO. This remedy is no longer applicable.

Had we referred the matter to the WRC under the Unfair Dismissal Act we would be seeking a remedy under that act. However, when we referred the matter to the WRC we had expected that the matter would have been dealt with in a timely fashion, we had not expected that delays and frustration of the process would have such an effect on the Worker as to force her to resign from the Bank.

Introduction and Preliminary objection to the Claim

1. The Worker was employed by the Bank from 7th June 2005 to 8th September 2023. The Worker is no longer employed by the Bank.

2. The Worker through her Union representative has alleged that she was carrying out a higher-level role for the Bank than the role she was being paid for.

3. The Worker has outlined that she should have received a promotion to Level 3 on the basis that she believed she was doing the full role of a Level 3 “HRQMO”. Prior to submitting a case to the WRC, the Worker failed to utilise the Bank’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms to try and resolve this issue. It is strenuously denied that the Bank has discriminated against the Worker in any way.

4. Given the Worker has resigned from the Bank by her own choice, it leaves no possibility of her being promoted to the Level 3 HRQMO position as is requested in the Union’s claim.

5. The Union has raised this case under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The submission of any case under the Act relates to collective disputes and the Act does not provide for individual cases to be heard under the Industrial Relations Act, save for issues regarding unfair dismissal. On that basis and in the absence of any claim for constructive dismissal, the Bank submit that the claim is without merit and invalid.

6. The Bank fail to understand why the Union is proceeding with this case given the worker chose to resign from her position and is no longer a staff member.

Background and Response to Allegation of Discrimination

7. Without prejudice to our preliminary objection, this claim was submitted on the basis that the worker should be promoted to a Level 3 HRQMO position – The Union have cited a breach of a collective agreement and/or breach of policy. The Banks’s selection policy, specifically outlines that there is no automatic entitlement to promotion and a set of agreed criteria must be met,

8.  As part of the implementation of the Bank’s Career Structure in 2019 all roles within the Bank were reviewed and had levels applied to them based on accountabilities and responsibilities. In order to ensure that the levels were applied consistently and correctly, there was a robust mapping process put in place. This was agreed during conciliation that took place between the Bank and the Financial Services Union (FSU) in the WRC. The Bank and FSU also agreed two new robust agreements relating to acting up - a Progression Agreement and a Temporary Higher Level Agreement.

9.  The Bank has been very clear that the worker was never doing all the accountabilities of the Level 3 “HRQMO” role. The Bank has applied a fair application of what was agreed with the Union in relation to the relevant agreements that applied based on the limited accountabilities and responsibilities that the worker had taken on. This was in the best interests of the employee and in line with good industrial relations practices.

10. The Bank does not dispute that the HRQMO role, as it is known in Branch Banking, is a Level 3 role but the facts are that the Worker was never carrying out the full accountabilities of the level 3 role. The Bank, at the request of the Worker to gain more experience in the HRQMO role, allowed her to upskill and complete some of the tasks and accountabilities of the role for career development. However, she never took on the full role as evidenced in her Performance Reviews for 2021 & 2022. The Bank finds it entirely disingenuous that despite the Bank being asked by the Worker to be allowed develop her skills in this role, the Union is now accusing the Bank of acting incorrectly or inappropriately for allowing the staff member to develop and learn new skills which she had requested.

11. In the Unions submission, it has been put forward that the Worker had been doing the role of a Level 3 within Retail Banking. The Worker was mapped to a level 2 role in the new career structure back in 2018, which was commensurate to the role and accountabilities that she was undertaking. As part of the agreed new Career Structure with the FSU – there was robust appeals process available to staff who were unhappy with the outcome of their mapping.

12. It is important to note the Worker was in a Level 2 role and had taken on some of the accountabilities of a Level 3 HRQMO role alongside her Level 2 role for developmental purposes to have her best positioned for a promotional opportunity in the future. The progression agreement was applied and the staff member received a 5% pay increase.

13. The Bank have reviewed some queries raised on behalf of the Worker by the Union in relation to this matter, however the bank’s formal internal dispute resolution process was not followed and as such we were not aware that the worker was still unhappy prior to her resignation from the Bank while on Long Term Sick Leave.

14. As evidenced in the Worker’s Performance Reviews, she had expressed an interest in supporting the “HRQMO” in her branch and growing her knowledge by providing support to the employee in that role.

15. In 2019, the Worker took on completing some of the tasks when the “HRQMO” was on annual leave and in her end of year review it was documented that she was interested in pursuing this area of work. The additional tasks would be aligned to the data quality aspect of the role and no HR elements of the role were undertaken.

16. In 2020, due to the pandemic, the “HRQMO” began working remotely and the Worker continued to support the role, doing some of the accountabilities which are noted in her end of year review.

17. In 2021, the Worker continued to the support the “HRQMO” and in December 2021, the employee who held the “HRQMO” role left the Bank and the Worker agreed to take on the operational risk accountabilities of the “HRQMO” part of the role in 2022. This would better position her to develop and strengthen her opportunity to progress in the role. The accountabilities and responsibilities that she took over at this time are clearly documented in her end of year review.  The Worker took on the operational excellence accountabilities. The People Leader responsibilities and HR accountabilities fundamental to the full HRQMO role were shared by two other colleagues in the branch. For clarity, the Worker was paid an additional 5% of her salary for taking on these additional accountabilities, which is in line with the terms of our Progression collective agreement.

18. In 2022, the Worker’s interim performance review refers to “QMO” to describe the above structure and the accountabilities she completed. It is clear from her interim performance review that she was never doing the full HRQMO role and had only taken on some of the accountabilities of the role. It is important to point out that the Worker signed off on this Performance Review, thereby indicating that the information within was correct. Her Full Year Performance Review also noted that she was on a learning curve and was interested in applying for a Level 3 position in another branch when applications opened. Again, recognition by the Worker that she was not and never had been carrying out the full HRQMO role in her branch.

Collective Agreements

19. The Union will argue as part of its submission that the Bank breached a collective agreement as part of its actions in this case. The Bank refutes this entirely.

20. The Union fail to acknowledge that the Worker asked to take on additional accountabilities for developmental purposes referenced above, and in recognition of this, and in line with our collective agreement for taking on additional these additional accountabilities, the Bank paid her the 5% progression payment.

21. For context it should be noted that the Bank and the Union have two collective agreements in place to reward a staff member for taking on additional accountabilities on top of the normal accountabilities of their role. They are a Progression Agreement and a Temporary Higher Level Accountability agreement.

Treatment by the Bank

22. The Union will argue that the Worker was treated poorly by the bank after the unfortunate events which she went through in her personal life. The Bank strongly rejects this suggestion.

23. When the Worker went on sick leave from the Bank, the Bank continued to pay her full salary for 6 months, when her full pay entitlement was exhausted, the Bank then paid her half her salary for 6 months, as per our Sickness Absence Policy. She was also given access to the Bank’s Employee Assistance Programme to support her through this difficult time. This provided the Worker with access to 6 counselling sessions provided by our employee assistance programme providers. If the Worker had needed and requested additional sessions, the Bank would have been happy to facilitate these.

24. It should also be noted that the Union had discussions with the Industrial Relations team prior to the Worker’s resignation. The Union had asked, on the Worker’s behalf for a change of role and work location. That any alternate role would not be a customer facing role in branch banking and would offer her more flexibility than a customer facing branch role currently offers so that she could avail of some form of home working options. For the Bank’s part, and in an effort to help the Worker return to work, had found an alternative role that matched the criteria that the Union had sought. Despite the Bank’s best effort, the Worker made the decision to resign and not return to work with the Bank.

25. In a conversation with her absence case manager prior to her resignation, the Worker had said that she had made the decision to leave the Bank, to get a clean break after everything she had been through, despite all efforts made by the Bank to find her a new role which matched all the criteria that the Worker had requested, she still made the decision to leave the employment of the bank.

Role Replacement

26. The Union may make the argument that the Bank replaced the Worker while she was on sick leave with a full time HRQMO to support their argument that the Worker was carrying out the full HRQMO role. The Bank did place an experienced HRQMO in the branch while the Worker was on Long Term Sick Leave, this decision was made by management as the full-time role had been vacant since the role holder left the Bank in December 2022 and management felt that the branch needed a full time Level 3 HRQMO to support the branch manager. This is no reflection on the Worker’s work up to that point, but rather as a result of a full time Level 3 carrying out the full role in the branch.

27. It must also be noted that this decision to fill the vacant role with a Level 3 HRQMO was made at a time when the Union had been running a campaign that there needed to be a Level 3 HRQMO in situ in every branch throughout the bank. The Union had put the Bank on notice that they were prepared to take a case to the WRC if we didn’t ensure that there was a full time Level 3 HRQMO in each branch in the country. Therefore, part of the Bank’s decision to place a Level 3 HRQMO in this branch was lobbied for by the union and in line with what they had campaigned for with the Bank. It is therefore entirely disingenuous of the Union to suggest that it was wrong of the Bank to appoint a Level 3 HRQMO in the Worker’s branch when this was what the Union had asked the Bank to do across its network of branches.

Summary.

28. It is clear that there has been no breach of the collective agreements between the parties in this case.

29. The facts are that the Worker never took on the full accountabilities of a Level 3 HRQMO, and this is evidenced in her own PR’s, which both the Worker and her line manager signed off on as part of the annual PR process.

30. The Bank acted consistently in accordance with the collective agreement in place with the Union in relation to the application of a progression payment. The Worker took on additional accountabilities on top of the duties she carried out in her Level 2 role and the bank applied a 5% salary increase for taking on this additional work.

31. We acknowledge the Worker took on some additional accountabilities that were previously completed by a Level 3 HRQMO. The Bank, in good faith and in line with our collective agreement, applied the terms of our Progression Agreement and the Worker was paid an additional 5% of salary to recognise the fact that the worker took on these additional accountabilities, however as previously stated in this submission she did not carry out nor did she have the full accountabilities of a Level 3 HRQMO.

32. Based on what has been outlined above, the Worker was not entitled to any further progression payments, nor was she entitled to be promoted to the Level 3 HRQMO position

I have carefully considered the submissions from both parties and also carefully listened to what was stated at the hearing of the complaint on 16th April 2024.

I note that the representative of the worker has clearly stated the following in his submission:

1.1 While the issue referred to the WRC specifically relates to the treatment of the Worker this issue must be seen in the context of wider developments affecting all bank employees in the context of acting up, and in respect of collective agreements in that regard.

1.2 The Financial Services Union put in place a comprehensive agreement for employees in the Bank to map from what was a grading system for roles, to a levelling system for roles. All positions in theBank Group were mapped on the basis of their role description and level of responsibility/accountability into one of seven levels. Level 1 being the entry level grade, with Level 7 being the executive level in the Bank inclusive of the CEO.

This raises a question regarding the complaint. Is this really a complaint on behalf of an individual worker or is it a complaint regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement and a body of workers?

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 reads as follows:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

No matter how I view this complaint I cannot overlook the words of the Workers representative where he clearly states …… “this issue must be seen in the context of wider developments affecting all bank employees in the context of acting up, and in respect of collective agreements in that regard”

I have considered this carefully and now must conclude that the complaint relates to a body of workers and as such I have no jurisdiction to hear the case as presented and therefore cannot make a recommendation in relation to the complaint.

Industrial Relations Act, 1969.