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 Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Loss of earnings and loss of service during dispute.
2. The Union's claim on behalf of 11 Currency Assistants concerns a loss of earnings and loss of service arising from a dispute which occurred at the Bank's Sandyford, Co. Dublin site. In the course of their dispute the Currency Assistants were removed from the payroll from 15th March, 2005 to 12th April, 2005 for failure to cooperate with a Management instruction regarding work allocation. The eventual settlement terms, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (proposals of 6th April, 2005), provided for a payment of €1,250 and a term loan. On the 19th April, 2005 the Union submitted the claim for loss of pay and loss of service. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th July, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 13th September, 2006.
3. 1. The original dispute had arisen because of Management's decision to allocate part of the claimants' work to another group. The Union was at all times willing to have this issue resolved through negotiations.
2. The claimants did not 'remove themselves from the payroll' as stated by Management. This was not and is not in their control but in the complete control of the Bank. The claimants were suspended unnecessarily and, in the Union's view, in breach of the Bank's own disciplinary procedures.
3. The period of suspension caused serious financial loss to the claimants as well as the loss of pension rights. The Union is seeking the difference of the goodwill payment and the claimants actual loss in both financial terms and the loss of the pension rights for the period in question.
4. 1. The claimants refused to cooperate with normal work change in March, 2005 which resulted in the work stoppage. They precipitated an issue that led to their effectively walking off the job.
2. Discussions on a return to work formula were protracted and involved the highest levels of the Bank. The LRC proposals of the 6th April, 2005 were in final settlement of the dispute. The negotiated settlement was at the outer reaches of what the Bank was willing to accept. This was made clear to the Union in the discussions and negotiations to settle the dispute.Given that agreement, there was no justification in the Union's seeking to reopen the question of further monetary compensation.
It is clear to the Court that the proposals put forward by the LRC on 6th April, 2005 was in full and final settlement of all outstanding issues. The proposals were accepted by the Union.
In the circumstances the Court can see no basis upon which the Union can reopen the question of payment in respect of the loss of earnings at issue. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th September, 2006
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.