INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Pay increase in line with Craft Colleagues.
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of 8 Machine & General Assistants (M&GAs) for the restoration of a differential within the Engineering Services/Maintenance Department. The Maintenance Department is comprised of Craftsmen, Technicians and M&GAs. In 2001, the Bank was experiencing difficulties in recruiting Craftsmen. In an effort to rectify the situation the Bank adjusted the Craft rate resulting in a pay increase of 2.8%. The Union is now seeking that the 2.8% increase should apply to the M&GAs. The Bank rejected the claim and the case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place but as agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of January, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of May, 2005.
3. 1. The Bank paid the 2.8% increase to the Craftsmen for no other reason than to aid recruitment.
2. When the Technicians in the Maintenance Department discovered that the Craftsmen had received the increase they sought parity with them and the claim was conceded.
3. The M&GAs in the Maintenance Department are the lowest paid of their grade when compared to M&GAs in the Mint and Print Departments.This is as a result of a department-by-department review (rather than a grade review) which took place in the late 1990s.
4. 1.The Craftsmen agreed to a number of productivity measures in return for the 2.8% pay increase. The pay adjustment facilitated recruitment of suitable staff.
2. The M&GAs hold no relationship or relativity for pay purposes with Craftworkers. The Bank has separate collective agreements in place for both sets of workers. Conceding the claim could lead to knock-on claims across the Bank.
On behalf of Machine and General Assistants within the Engineering Services Department, the Union sought the restoration of a differential with Craftsmen in that department who received increases of 2.8% in 2002.
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. It is accepted that when a review took place in the late 1990s, rates of pay were reviewed on a department-by-department basis, with all those employed in the Engineering Services Department receiving the same percentage pay increases. However, the Court does not accept that this review established any form of relativity/differential between the Machine and General Assistants and the Craftsmen.
Based on the evidence put forward by both parties, the Court is satisfied that no other grounds have been put forward to indicate an established relativity/differential and, as there is no other basis for the Union's claim, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th May, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.