FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED IRISH BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 28 AIB Bank Computer sorters, formerly Mail Sorters employed in the despatch department. In the late 1970s these workers were equivalent to AIB Porter grade. Arising from technological developments, the Mail Sorters sought re-grading and an IPC study followed in 1980 that suggested their regrading to Computer Sorter, their pay amounting to that of Porters plus a differential of between 8% and 11.4% (at top of the scale). The Union claims that since the IPC report there has been a linkage/differential between Sorters and Porters and that the differential has slipped over time by some 5%. The Union claims that the cumulative loss to them should be restored with some retrospection. The Bank rejects the claim.
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 31st October, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th January, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1The original 5% differential although relatively short-lived (1970 to 1980) was never eroded.
2. The IPC recommendation that this be increased to 11.4% at the top of the scale was implemented. The IPC recommendation that the link between the Porters and Computer Sorters pay be severed was not accepted by the Bank who insisted that the Computer Sorter was a 'Porter Related Grade' and is still considered so to this day.
3. In recent recruitment of the Computer Sorters grade the applicants, usually Porters are always advised that they will have an 11.4% differential.
4. The Union's claim if for the restoration of a 2% differential which was awarded following an in-dept comprehensive study by the IPC in 1980
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management claims that if there was a differential established, it was done so at a point in time and not something to perpetuate regardless of wage rounds and general collective bargaining The pay movement of Computer Sorters has been in line with wage rounds, National Wage Agreements and productivity agreements since the establishment of the pay scale a fact that has been acknowledged by SIPTU.
2. No link to the porter grade has been established and when specific pay and productivity collective bargaining took place, it did so without reference to differentials and the maintenance of these.
3. The Union claims that a differential of 11.4% should exist between the Computer Sorters and the 'Porters' at the top of the scale. The pay and productivity agreements 2000/2001 actually increased the difference between the Computer Sorter and the Porter grade to 15.8% at the top of the scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the differential given rise to this dispute was eroded between 1980 and 1990 in consequence of the application of locally negotiated or national pay agreements which provided for flat rate or weighted increases. The structure of these agreements was such that they inevitably and deliberately affected the pay gap between different groups.
In the circumstances the Court does not see any viable basis upon which it could recommend concessions of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd January, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.