INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Compensation in respect of 1. non-promotion, 2. loss of overtime, 3. loss of shift lead-in payment
2. The worker was employed as a Currency Assistant by the bank and in May 2002, applied, along with three work colleagues, for the position of foreman in the Currency Section. None of the candidates were successful and the bank announced that it would be recruiting externally.
- The Union pursued the matter on behalf of the four claimants to the Rights Commissioner who recommended‘ the person considered to be the mostsuitable candidate by the interview panel be appointed to the position’.
The worker was subsequently appointed to a position in another department which he had applied for before being informed that he had been placed first at interview stage for the position of foreman in the Currency Section. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for compensation to the amount of €8,500 as follows:
1. Compensation for an annual loss on basic pay including the loss of additional annual leave ( €4,000 ).
2. Compensation for the loss of regular overtime ( €3,000 ).
3. Compensation for shift lead-in payment that was paid to his colleagues ( €1,500 ).
The Bank rejects the claim on the basis that the worker, along with his colleagues, had not been recommended for promotion by local Management but had been interviewed as a courtesy to a small group of staff.
- The 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 7th July, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1.The claim is reasonable and modest. The loss of potential earnings is based on basic pay only. The continuous aggregate losses deriving from the shorter working week and the effect this would have on the hourly rate and overtime have not been factored in.
2.The loss of overtime was resolved through an agreed settlement. The worker was party to the original loss of overtime and shift claim and therefore suffered the same loss as his colleagues. He would have received it had he been promoted.
4. 1.The worker had voluntarily sought a transfer to another department and was working under new terms and conditions. He could not be a party to the shift working agreement concluded 10 months later with his previous department.
2.The bank, as an employer, recognises its role in the matter and has made an offer of a lump sum of €3,000 as compensation to the worker in full settlement of the grievance claim. This represents the difference in two years earnings of basic pay for a Foreman Currency Assistant compared with a Currency Assistant.
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties and is of the view that the claimant has a genuine grievance in respect of the manner in which the Bank responded to the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in his favour.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Bank offer and the Union accepts a lump sum payment of €7,000 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.